971–980 of 1001 posts
I'm dismayed by this ruling but I'm curious: can someone defend it? I'm able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I'm just not seeing the counterpoint?
You're in luck! The Supreme Court itself writes down why the decision was made. You can just…read it.
It says: Immunity for official acts. Going after your opponents is rarely an official act. Nixon and Co. don‘t have immunity for un-official acts.
It says: Immunity for official acts. Going after your opponents is rarely an official act. Nixon and Co. don‘t have immunity for un-official acts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
You should probably start widening your reading material. All the court is saying is Obama can't be sued for signing Obamacare into law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ruling seems to open the door to a president being immune from, say, commanding SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. “In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was…
The Seal Team 6 example keeps getting batted around and that's unfortunate because it would be an extreme and obviously outrageous attack which would attract much unwanted attention. Part of the ruling was that conversations between DOJ and President constitute the President's official duties and "therefore" (per the three judges appointed by Trump, one who expressed sympathies with Jan 6 rioters, and yet another who…
The reality with this ruling is it will embolden future presidents to do things that are to their advantage even if they think those actions may be illegal. Presidents don't need more protection from people. We the people need more protection from them.
> We the people need more protection from them. And we have it: 2nd Amendment, isn’t it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone living in Geemany my bar for auch high level laws is: would Adolf Hitler have been able to use it to abolish democracy? If so it is bad. IMO the US president was already too powerful since the cold war, but this is crazy.
American has an extremely weak state. The government is incapable of accomplishing basic tasks. Men like Trump want to weaken the state further. Look at Trumps actions during COVID. Did he use the crisis to grab power? Declare a state of emergency? Declare martial law? Suspend habeas corpus? No he told the states to handle it. The real fear Americans have isn't a Hitler situation, but a Hindenburg situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the best way I've heard it put. The United States was founded to escape rulers who were above the law, and the Constitution was created to protect it. For the justices who claim to be primarily driven by the constitution to make this ruling seems bizarre, and it's hard for me to see it in any other way than partisan bias. The president does not need this power and protection. The past 2 years are the first ti…
> Presidents do not need protection from the people, the people need protection from presidents. I know this sounds good but is it true? I've never needed protection from the president but presidents are occasionally shot at and sometimes killed. Presidents need the secret service because they do, in fact, need protection from the people.
If there were a pattern of presidents being unjustly punished for their actions, for political gain or retribution, then something like this might make sense. There is not yet a pattern, and I think that to strengthen the power of the president in such an undefined and potentially very broad way, should be done with great caution and only when it is clear that the ability of the government to use the legal system against former presidents is being systemically abused. I don't think that is at all clear, there just isn't enough data yet.
If they wanted to protect Trump from some of the current prosecution against him, they could have done so much more narrowly.
No one and nothing should be above the law, even temporarily, period. That just opens up so many cans of worms.