this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
147 points (98.7% liked)

News

23271 readers
2904 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
147
Supreme Court agrees to quick review of Trump’s presidential immunity claim (www.tucsonsentinel.com)
submitted 11 months ago by JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee to c/news@lemmy.world
34 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Meltrax@lemmy.world 80 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Blows my mind how this isn't just the most cut and dry logical answer ever.

Is the president immune from prosecution under the law? No. No one is. That's the point of the laws. If a leader is fully immune they are a dictator.

And fuck it, even if you're insane and think Trump would be a good King of the US, if this gets passed then there's no precedent stopping Biden saying at the end of his term "no, I'm staying, screw you". That is terrible regardless of your political standing.

[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Screw waiting for an election. If the SC states that a sitting President is immune from law, the current President should simply point this out to everybody (so we're clear here) and cancel the upcoming election. Leave plenty of time for the SC to backpedal so the elections actually do happen, but then Trump can be prosecuted.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 30 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Or even better, the sitting President can start hunting Supreme Court Justices for sport.

You know, since there's no law saying he can't.

[–] Kage520@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well damn if that's the new job expectation then I really think the president is too old for duty. I vote for The Rock.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

Well, if the President is immune then he can always appoint a SCOTUS Hunter cabinet position.

[–] bane_killgrind@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Deepfake Biden into one of the adaptations of The Most Dangerous Game and we'll have a movie night

[–] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 8 points 11 months ago

King of the US

If it's going to be anyone, it's gotta be King Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Camacho.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 11 months ago

I mean, if we're gonna have a king at all, I'd vote Charles III over this POS. And that's saying something.

Maybe we could just rescind our independence. Our problems become shared problems. Nothing really improves, but it becomes more socially acceptable for me and the boys to cry into pints every night.

[–] SeedyOne@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's indeed a bit crazy but it highlights a need we have in legislation to properly spell out enforcement. Gone are the days when it was enough to have a gentleman's agreement to report and act on certain transgressions. Now, sadly, the default action is to ignore and deny until the issue goes away and it works far too often.

[–] Meltrax@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Our current law system also vastly benefits those who can spend millions on lawyers.

[–] pm_me_your_quackers@lemmy.world 49 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Saw a thread yesterday where people were happy cause they think the Supreme Court is going to tell him to get fucked.

I say I wish I still had that child-like optimism.

They only fuck poor people.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Look, I'm hating the conservative bent in this Court, and they seem wildly biased, but y'all are off base in many ways.

Not all their judgements are conservative. They told Alabama to fuck themselves over voting districts. They refused to hear a "pray away the gay" case yesterday, deferring to a lower court's opinion. Been a couple more that surprised me, but the cases escape me ATM. Didn't they refuse to hear a Trump related case recently? This might be what I'm thinking of.

The other weird thing I see all over lemmy, not your post!, is the idea that because Trump appointed them, they're somehow beholden to him. Nope. That's the whole idea behind lifetime appointments. A Justice can tell anyone and everyone to fuck themselves without fear of reprisal, current or future.

tl;dr: The current Court is conservative, not partisan. For this very particular job, that's a real difference.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Can you imagine the precedent this would set?

"I want to be a dictator. Just kidding. Nanananana you can't touch me"

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It's a dangerous crossroads. The precedent would break this country...

And 3 of the judges making the decision were appointed by the guy on trial. Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn't depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I've been pondering for a long time about how SCOTUS and more than 1/3 of the Senate could essentially take over the country over night. That case where they decided whether a state could overturn election results without federal interference gave me worry. But luckily most of them weren't that radical. At least not right now.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm sure they have no desire to give Dark Brandon carte blanche to whatever the fuck he wants to do.

[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Of course not, but that's not really how they think. They tend to do what's best for them now, and then ignore the rules in the future when it hurts them.

Rules for thee not for me.

[–] Kainsley@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Declaring that the sitting president can essentially act as a dictator is most definitely bad for them right now lol

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Clarence Thomas is openly corrupt. And I wouldn't depend on Roberts for any my moral backbone.

Right there ya go. OTOH, I don't give a shit if he appointed them. They owe him nothing, he cannot do anything to them. It just doesn't work that way.

Afraid this might be a close one.

[–] bradv@lemmy.ca 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Nothing in the constitution that says we can't have a dictator.

  • Supreme Court, probably
[–] medicsofanarchy@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Fine! The moment they rule this, Biden should step up and take the position. See how quickly they backpedal.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

This is so true. I’m just so happy he hasn’t taken Trump up on all of the things that Trump says that he would be able to do if reelected.

[–] JeSuisUnHombre@lemm.ee 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If they give him immunity I'm fucking rioting

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

You and everybody else that didn't vote for that sweat stain of a human being.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 11 months ago

We'll miss you, Hombre.

[–] 2fat4that@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

No need to riot. General strike my man.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

Brace yourself for legalization of dictatorship (offer valid only for R candidates).