this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024

662 points (95.2% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27036 readers

1230 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 fun

Doxxing, 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 spam

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

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just 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:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world

candyman337@lemmy.world

TheSaneWriter@lemm.ee

TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com

candyman337@sh.itjust.works

Asudox@lemmy.world

can@lemmy.ca

lemmy_bot@lemmy.world

beefbaby182@lemmy.world

asudox@discuss.tchncs.de

ModeratorCan@lemmy.world

662

Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability? (lemmy.autism.place)

submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place to c/asklemmy@lemmy.world

349 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

(page 7) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] savvywolf@pawb.social 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm not American and so am not in touch with American politics, but I have an American friend who doesn't seem to be bothered by it. I assume he knows better than me, so I'm trying not to worry about it.

But if I were to worry about it, I can see the whole Trump situation leading to another civil war for you guys...

[–] meep_launcher@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (6 children)

The argument I saw for this was that a president shouldn't have to second guess every action they take while in office. That if they are held liable for everything they do, they may be paralyzed to make changes to the government.

I kinda thought that was kinda what the founders wanted to happen...

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] ToucheGoodSir@lemy.lol 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I wonder who killed JFK. Yeah it was Bush Senior and his ilk. Those responsible for the business (biznuss) plot by fascist scum in the 30s to coup d'etat the American government then. If it was not for Smedley Butler being the person they tried to get to lead this failed coup, and him going to congress instead to lead their army of hundreds of thousands... history would be VERY different.

This link is a link to one of Americas greatest heroes, in my opinion. I hope he rests in peace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

This link has a picture of the most ruthless killers in history all together cozy as a family, being two faced little biatches & fleecing the American people with wedge issue politics where people morally feel they need to choose a side (abortion, gun control, social issues like LGBTQ rights etc), instead of the American people uh, focusing on the economic side of things . https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/the-story-of-the-viral-photo-of-the-presidential-families.html

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

I am not important enough to be targeted but privileged enough to be noticed if I was disappeared.

[–] Maeve@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago

You're not misunderstanding, but calm down, anyway.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Despite the alarm, it's nothing new though. International diplomats cite immunity to prosecution to get out of paying for speeding tickets on a daily basis.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -3 points 4 months ago (10 children)

I don't know why people care. Obama dronestriked an American citizen and nothing happened. Snowden revealed that we are all under mass surveillance and nothing happened. Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened. This ruling just reflects reality.

[–] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago

Wtf is that third thing? Are you confusing it with the thing Trump did, refusing to give them funds until they make up dirt on Biden? Because what you said was weird and untrue. The first two things were.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social -3 points 4 months ago

I am concerned if a replikkklown ever gets elected to presidency before we can have the tRump appointed judges either executed or removed from office and fix this dumbass shit.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (9 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.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Crowfiend@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Lol imagine being so late to the discussion that it's already over, and your thoughts are little more than hindsight, that your newborn child is an unforseen consequence

Edit; incumbent idiots don't make the rest of us responsible for their mistakes. They fucking on they own, fucking simpasses.

[+] oxjox@lemmy.ml -7 points 4 months ago (6 children)

No. Because they specifically said this is not the case.

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.

They're essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations. The constitution outlines a handful of constitutional duties (such as pardoning) which are by definition the law not prosecutable. There's a presumption of immunity for their official acts. Anything they do outside of official acts is not immune.

Nothing has really changed. It's only made it more clear how difficult the process is to indict a president. The Fourth section of Article II still exists.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So, let's say, not for the first time ever, a president orders an assassination and congress wants to hold them accountable for this action. It will need to be determined if this act was part of their official duties. The issue SCOTUS has presented is that it's very, very difficult for congress to obtain the motivation for such an act. Such a case would be dependent on the specific circumstances. I mean, if the president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, no one's going to, nor have the ever, question that. If they order the assassination of a congressional leader, don't imagine they're going to get away with that.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments