205
This is the single most terrifying question of law right now. Are presidents above the law or not? What's most terrifying is that I believe more than a couple supreme court justices believe they are.
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
205 points (98.1% liked)
News
23284 readers
3999 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
No, this will certainly be rejected, even by this SCOTUS (they’ve already ruled against Trump a few times, and this one is even more ridiculous).
Something I haven’t seen trump’s lackeys acknowledge is that if they ruled in his favour, it would apply to Biden, Obama, and Clinton, too. Not sure they’d like that as much.
I can't see that holding them back.
Nixon sure thought so, had no case law to challenge that belief, his ‘Imperial Presidency’ was a disaster for the US, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the wider world. The sheer depth of his corruption and criminality lead to executive privilege being gutted into the ‘Imperiled Presidency’ of Ford and Carter. It took 9/11 to give Bush/Cheney the confidence to push that limit again, and again with awful and lasting consequences for the US and the wider world.
SCoTUS’s most recently ruled limits on executive privilege during Obama, so there’s case law to get at Meadows/Sessions/Guiliani/etc Trump’s scenario is untested because LBJ and Ford lacked the spine to rightfully trial and hang Nixon for outright treason.
Pretty sad this even has to be asked.
Seems like a no brainer. But why did SCOTUS kick the ball down the field?
I follow a few lawyers on Mastodon - the general consensus is that the prosecutor jumped a few steps by going directly to SCOTUS and they told him, "Nope, do this the right way via appeals first".
It was unanimous from the court, and I get that this needs to be by the book, but it sure feels like it fits with the Trump effort to delay, delay, delay.
Fair enough. Only shouldn't his participation in the election process be halted until the decision is made, given the unprecedented nature of the decision and the gravitas of the outcome?
Yup, but the Fascists gonna Fascist.
Innocent until proven otherwise.
There are enough reasonable people left on the court that when a decision is unanimous, I'm willing to accept that it was proper.
Voting in the affirmative does not guarantee the reasoning is identical across the board.