Is anyone else highly concerned with the SCOTUS ruling that the POTUS is immune from criminal liability?

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?

nycki ,

I'm pissed that Biden isn't calling their bluff and breaking a ton of laws right now.

littlecolt ,
@littlecolt@lemm.ee avatar

Yes, have you browsed Lemmy or the general internet the past few days??? How can you still be asking "is anyone else" at this point?

Bgugi ,

Because they want to make a successful post but don't actually have anything to add to the conversation.

littlecolt ,
@littlecolt@lemm.ee avatar

I don't get why that would "make a successful post" it's weird.

Bgugi ,

And yet here we are.

littlecolt ,
@littlecolt@lemm.ee avatar

If my presence is the measure of success we're using, we're in way bigger trouble than I had imagined.

Sam_Bass ,

Pretty sure we all are at least a little ticked off about it. Except for maybe all the fat oranges magats out there

DeadHorseX ,
@DeadHorseX@lemmy.world avatar

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.

This isn't true.

They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.

They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there's a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

BrokenGlepnir ,

They also said that official acts cover just about everything when using presidential power, and you can't take motive into account when determining if it's an official act or not. Shooting a gun at someone himself. Not official sure. Ordering someone in the military to do it. You can't ask why he did it, and if it was legal, why would immunity matter?

Phegan ,

They left it intentionally vague so cases will make it to the supreme Court so the court can decide based on of the president is on their team or not.

Professorozone ,

And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.

bitchkat ,

Technically its the lower court but you know they will all be appealed and ultimately the supreme court will decide.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

It's yet another tactic to delay.

cheers_queers ,

i know this is a dumb question, but why isn't there some kind of law mandating equal amounts of SC Justices from each party? that way, they would HAVE to work together and one side can't take control. i thought this country was sooo proud of our checks and balances, but it seems to me that they aren't working.

Poppenlockenheimmer ,

The SC judges are supposed to be non-partisan. The idea was that life terms would insulate them from partisan pressures. This has never really been the case. As far back as 1857, the Dred Scott decision was largely viewed as influenced by partisan politics. You can look to the tensions between Roosevelt and the court for more stark evidence of the political nature of the Supreme Court.

Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely in the near future given the present state of affairs.

cheers_queers ,

thank you for the informative reply. i was unfortunately homeschooled with very white washed Southern Baptist curriculum so i am still learning basics about how our government ACTUALLY works. and the more i learn, the more i hate it here.

it seems so obvious to me that life terms themselves are extremely prone to corruption, especially in a capitalist society. isn't this the whole reason Washington refused a third term? it is very interesting, albeit terrifying, to see the same principal held for certain parts of government, but not for others, with no discernable way to fix it at this point.

Poppenlockenheimmer ,

I'm happy I could help. My sympathies for having to make up later in life an education you were rightly owed. I'm from the south myself and know more than a few people who experienced the same. Fortunately it's never to late to learn and what better time than an election year?

If you're interested Scott Abernathy's "American Government: Stories of a Nation" is a great and comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the US government. It provides a fairly balanced view and a narrative style that is easier to digest than more textbook-like sources.

Our country is indeed in trouble and while I won't say fixing it will be easy, I urge you not to give in to doomerism. Stay informed, be critical, and most of all, find some way to get involved, if you can, at the local level.

cheers_queers ,

i will look for that to listen to at work. it sounds helpful. I'm definitely not giving in, but it is very scary being queer in America right now. I'm hopeful for the best but preparing for the worst.

Schadrach ,

As commander in chief, communicating with the military is definitely a core duty and absolutely immune. So is writing pardons. So you just order the military to crime in your name and pardon them afterward.

Olgratin_Magmatoe ,

Or the CIA. We all know how trigger happy they are after all.

afraid_of_zombies ,

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

ToucheGoodSir ,

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

GaMEChld ,

Biden has no balls. He should take one for the team and order the execution of SCOTUS. Either he gets prosecuted or he'll put an end to this nonsense by force. Even if he gets prosecuted he's old as fuck he'll never see prison.

badbrainstorm ,
@badbrainstorm@lemmy.today avatar

Just throw the six that voted for immunity in prison for treason. A fate worse than death

xenoclast ,

Easily proved. Especially if you bring it in front of what's left of SCOTUS.

But then Biden is a dictator too. It's fun to dream about revenge but it always hurts the wrong people in the end.

McNasty ,
@McNasty@sh.itjust.works avatar

At this point, we need someone to seize the reins long enough to save us. And then put them down.

xenoclast ,

History says it never, ever, works like that.

It tells of many examples of when people thought it was a good idea...

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Roman dictators did exactly that, though

Not saying their system was perfect by any means but people out here acting like there's 0 historic examples are just wrong

xenoclast ,

Yeah, that's a perfect example of how awful things can get. A slave driven economy .. and society full off ancient bullshit and death and strife and murder and horrific genocides... if you're holding up the Roman empire as a good thing for people...well, I'm not going to convince you of much.

They've had great marketing since though.. Especially the holy Catholic Church who has just the BEST history of being so great, like I think Epstein's greatest blunder was not being a Catholic. They would have protected him much better.

gamermanh ,
@gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Wow, what awful reading comprehension you have.

Did I not literally say they weren't perfect?

Did I claim their society was perfect and the result of dictators?

Or did I refute the idea that history exclusively shows dictators abusing their power?

Dlayknee ,

Careful, this is the exact mantra of the right. They just want a little dictatorship to get things back in line and then things will go back to normal.

SPOILER: it won't

suction ,

Isn’t that the exact story of The Phantom Menace?

badbrainstorm ,
@badbrainstorm@lemmy.today avatar

Just the once though. Then balance/expand the SCOTUS. Give the Republicans a few to make it fair. Vote to overturn, and forget it ever happened.
Logical people can't get that upset that the only thing he did with his new king powers is do what it takes to save democracy

xenoclast ,

I think not using the power is the only right thing to do. Power corrupts the user. That's why the balance of power existed. Using it now invites a future where it's used again. We were very lucky to not slip down the slope of using nukes "just a little". We wouldn't be here to talk about if it had.

HawlSera ,

I feel like if Trump wins the election, my trans ass is going to end up in a concentration camp. Kinda hope I die before that happens.

Baggie ,

I know you're being glib but I hope you live friend

time_fo_that ,

I'm gay so I have been literally looking at Canadian immigration

uhmbah ,

Sorry, mate. The right is digging in their claws here to...

https://lemmy.ca/post/24380087

time_fo_that ,

Ugh

daddy32 ,

I hope HE dies before that happens. And wish you well.

slingstone ,

We need to organize an underground railroad for LGBTQ+, minorities, and dissidents now.

exanime ,

You are right to be concerned. If this is not reversed soon and with a bang, the USA would either be in a civil war or start WWIII in the next 5 years

meep_launcher ,

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...

BlackPenguins ,

It was only intended for "official acts as President". The problem is that it is so vague that now every illegal thing he did will have to be litigated to death to determine if it was official. Delaying everything for the 20th time.The official was more sending people to die in a war and less trying to overthrow a government because he "had a hunch".

irotsoma ,
@irotsoma@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah, not only that, there were already plenty of protections in place to prevent being restricted from doing what needs to be done. But this ruling now makes all of the laws that specifically target the president and executive branch from being enforced in addition to the existing protections. This includes implementing martial law for no good reason, which Trump already said he was going to do to get revenge on the people that stopped him from winning in 2020, changing all executive branch employees to political appointments, obeying term limits which Trump also said he deserves a third term, keeping appropriate records which Trump refused to do to the point that staffers had to tape together documents that he ripped up on a regular basis, or plain old murder which again Trump has said he was planning to murder his enemies using the military.

somethingp ,

Not really. The founders wanted a 3 pronged, balanced government with each branch checking the others' power. Now the legislative essentially can't do anything against the executive, and neither can the judicial unless SCOTUS changes its mind.

They specifically didn't want another king

xenspidey ,

Correct but as the commander and chief there are military actions that need to be considered. An example i can think of is the droning of American citizens by the Obama administration. He's not going to be charged with murder for that as it was an official act. At least that's how i have thought about it.

somethingp ,

Sure, but the difference was he could've been charged for murder if, let's say, the person he ordered to be killed was a political opponent and not a clear threat to the nation. And Congress or judges would've had some power to make that call before, whereas they don't really seem to have that power anymore.

Also, strictly speaking in terms of what the founders wanted - they did not want the president to have those kinds of powers. Most of these things were really brought in during FDR's tenure during WWII where he took a lot of power for the executive branch. And it's a trend that's been continuing since.

hglman ,

The president should absolutely be concerned about doing something illegal and be afraid to act swiftly when that's the case. If it's the law then it needs to not be violated, that's the point. If a law needs a provision for war time actions add one. Those exist this isn't hard.

Iron_Lynx ,

I had "The USA becomes a Failed State" pencilled in my calendar for November, not for July.

hglman ,

It was actually December 12, 2000

RememberTheApollo_ ,

This ruling was made for trump.

Think of how much trump has done, legally, questionably legal, and illegal, while in office.

Now remove accountability for any of it while ignoring the virtually Sisyphean task already faced to prosecute what he’s (and those surrounding him have) already done, and we have yet to see any sufficiently deterrent sentence being passed.

Now also imagine the arguing over what constitutes “official” acts, you bet your ass that one side is going to be perfectly happy to “officially” let trump shoot someone on 5th avenue.

This strips trump and those like him of the merest inconvenience of facing charges when they leave office. If they leave office.

It’s potentially disastrous on multiple levels.

zerog_bandit ,

Can't Biden just have a reaper drone fire a hellfire missile at Trump? Or am I missing something?

BackOnMyBS OP ,
@BackOnMyBS@lemmy.autism.place avatar

He could but he wont. Trump would definitely do it tho.

Persen ,

The problem is, Biden wouldn't do it, because he is demented and Trump would, because, well he can. So US are already fucked and the EU are probably next (ukraine war). While both sides are bad, I still think the demented guy is the one to vote for.

Potatos_are_not_friends ,

The whole Trump presidency was filled with Trump abusing vague powers because when it was written, they assumed that the president wasn't a asshole.

This new law plus Trump is a cluster fuck.

HawlSera ,

Democrats care more about decorum than the country.

Fades ,

Pretty much every democrat is indeed highly concerned... Along with plenty of moderate Rs. It's the far right fascists and their moronic blind followers that are rejoicing and the remaining people just don't have the time or intelligence to care.

ZILtoid1991 ,

This could easily lead to not firing the public servants that are not loyal enough, but outright assassinating them at best, or just Trump keeping the presidency (dictatorship) until the end of his life instead of holding elections at worst.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • asklemmy@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •