this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26778 readers
1315 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
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
AsudoxDev@programming.dev
1
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
20 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?

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It makes me very uncomfy from a fundamental perspective. Ignoring the fact that it goes against the founding principles of the US.

It provides rather wide and sweeping immunity, and even presumed immunity.

Although to be clear, the immunity act does not cover any private acts of the president, so if they were to for example,personally murder someone, it shouldn't apply, even remotely.

Now to be clear, the likelihood that a government official uses this to kill people is incredibly small because otherwise the precedent that it would set would literally push us into civil war. Will trump do it ? Good question.

[–] Kachajal@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're right, using this ruling in the way people fear it can be used would provoke a civil war.

Now, remind me, was there a large fraction of the US population frothing at the mouth at the idea of a civil war? Perhaps one with a complex the size of Alaska with regards to the previous US civil war? Hmm..

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

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isCh4kCeNYU two spoken quotes highly relevant.

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Nah man, this is very concerning. You don't need to calm down; I think everyone else is too fuckin calm about it.

What I want from anyone supporting this decision is a single example of a situation where the President would need to break the law in an official capacity. I want just one. I'll not get it, but I'm gonna keep demanding it.

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

The king of Sweden has a similar exemption from the law, but he also doesn’t hold any political power. I also don’t know how waterproof his status is if he did something heinous enough.

Trump already has done heinous stuff.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The king of Sweden doesn't control the most powerful military in the world.

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

He doesn't control much of anything, actually!

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yup! There's also the fact that kings usually tend to at least care about their country's welfare somewhat. Republicans don't give a shit about anything but money, power, and theocracy.

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

Capitalists. Capitalists are bipartisan, and that's why Biden is doing this big nothing.

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

I'd say Biden doing something official to null and void this decision would be good. He won't, obviously, but it's an example.

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

All this shit is literally straight out of the Putin playbook. Take control of the courts, take control of what is legal, take control of elections. Republicans were always too dumb and incompetent to be anything but pawns of a better organized evil.

[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fascism isn't some genius-brained thing, it's just how authoritarians operate, and Putin didn't invent it.

US politics has always been deeply corrupt, and now it is losing even more of its veneer of legitimacy, which means it's crumbled that much more.

The Russians aren't the cause of your woes. Actually if you look at what happened with the neoliberal shock doctrine and the fall of the USSR, the US is way more responsible for Putin than the other way around.

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

That's correct, and it doesn't discount that authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Notwithstanding, people are so indoctrinated with American exceptionalism and USA most free country in the world, we don't even bother to learn about what Greg Palast termed vulture capitalism and tactics used. Operation Paperclip is heavily whitewashed as "the best and brightest," leaving out the noun being described, Nazis.

We're in real trouble and the only ones who can save us from ourselves is ourselves. It will be interesting to see if it will be done before the climate extinction.

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

They basically just performed a coup for whoever becomes the next Republican president. It may not be Trump in 2024, but it doesnt matter, as soon as a Republican president is voted in it is over.

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

The profound importance of your comment can not be overestimated, imo. The American people need to wake up quickly and learn about soft coup and especially Operation Condor. History is repeating, and I get the feeling the soft coups shepherded by the USA abroad were test runs.

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

To be fair, the president can and does already assassinate people extrajudicially.

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

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

I mean yeah. We all knew Robert's wasn't going to encourage Biden to prosecute Bush and Obama for drone strikes.

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

Doesn't make it not a war crime.

[–] Kaboom@reddthat.com -1 points 4 months ago

The rules remained the same as it has for 200 years. The president is PRESUMED immunity for OFFICIAL acts. UNOFFICIAL acts have no immunity. This means there are still two angles of attack. Firstly you can say it that even though it was official, it was still unlawful. And second, you can say it wasnt an official act at all.

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

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