this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
662 points (95.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27036 readers
1237 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.

So like, I'm not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I've been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.

I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A president can't claim immunity. The president has always had immunity for acts that the constitution provides the office.

The president has inferred immunity for powers shared with Congress.

The president enjoys no immunity for acts as a private citizen.

These are important distinctions.

You or I cannot bomb another country. The president can.

You or I cannot kill a maid. The president cannot.

Only acts used with the power of the office are immune. You can't use presidential authority to sexually harass your staff. That's against the law.

The ruling didn't change anything, nor was anything given. SCOTUS doesn't create the law. We don't have a magical genie godking president all of a sudden.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Isn't the point that SCOTUS could decide that killing a maid was within the responsibilities of office.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No. The president could not personally kill their maid.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The maid was cleaning the presidents office. This was clearly presidential. Business. SCOTUS rules not guilty.

Do you believe that scenario is totally impossible?

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, because it doesn't fall within the powers granted to the president via the constitution. He cannot sexually harass her. He cannot kill her. He cannot take bribes from her. So on and so forth.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What if SCOTUS decide he can do all those things?

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

SCOTUS decides the limit (if it exists) of that power.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

Lower court ruling gets appealed and the decision ends up back with SCOTUS.

You obviously didn't understand the implications of the ruling.