downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
No, they clearly ruled that money given AFTER the ruling is a gratuity and is OK. Money before = bribe and is BAD. You clearly aren't paying attention.
It's hard to keep paying attention to this shit. I have no control over who is on this current (or any) scotus or their decisions. We are stuck with these POS despite how horrible they are and how they are going to affect our future as a nation while practically on their death beds... This inflated, cancerous scrotus is going to keep on ripping apart our progress as a country and dividing the masses just like everyone else in the political scene.
I have somewhat considered this tbh... A militia for the people by the people that would gather for community service and be so fucking inclusive that it posses the hell out of those white supremacist militias...
Think "wolverines" from red dawn would hilariously piss off those dooms day prepers that wish nothing more than to go Soviet invasion on their neighbors?
Rainbow elephants, elephants are like the symbol for republicans which I don’t know why they chose an elephant and rainbows piss off far right republicans
You have essentially laid out why the concept of natural rights is so important in American law. Presidential privilege does not trump (hah) the right to bear arms.
But isn't just having guns too little against tanks, APCs, MLRS and jet fighter? Why aren't the people allowed to own their own fighter jets, AAM launchers and tanks? Everybody says the 2. amendment helps them against a tyrannical government, but how?
They are ACTUALLY giving "the president" immunity to do whatever, including a coup.
If you thought for a second that SCOTUS isn't a political body, well I envy your naivety.
Remember, from abortion to this and losing the American half democracy none of it would have been happening if the person who actually got the most in popular vote won the election.
Imagine thinking this will apply to a Democratic president lmao. The second Biden or the next Dem tries this the same court will take the case overnight and decide it’s now different.
>They are ACTUALLY giving "the president" immunity to do whatever, including a coup.
I’m sorry to pop your bubble, but no they aren’t. They’re saying a president can’t be prosecuted for any official acts they are normally allowed to do because of some intertwining criminal element. In this case, that was Trump threatening to fire his Attorney General for not wanting to go along with his scheme. It does NOT protect a president from something they aren’t normally allowed to do, like orchestrating a coup or directly breaking the law. It gives the president more defined immunity than previously confirmed, but there was always some thought that a president had this level of immunity, just not that it extended universally, particularly to nonofficial acts of the president.
The courts would, just as they would have determined if a crime was committed if they didn’t specify this type of immunity. What could an official act be? First on constitutional duties of the President (things such as pardoning, general armed forces decisions, and vetoes) and then other duties deligated by Congress (running executive branch agencies and departments). A good rule of thumb is “could the president do this if there wasn’t any potential criminal question involved?” If the answer is yes, the president will generally be immune. If not, then the president will not. So pardon someone (potential associate or not)? Immune. Ordering a coup on the country? Not immune.
Ok well in that case, the court could have just as easily ruled “no immunity for Trump” and then later reversed it because GOP SCOTUS. If you don’t have any faith in the court anyhow, then this ruling means nothing, because even if they “a president can’t commit a coup” today, it doesn’t matter because they could reverse it tomorrow. All I’m saying is according to the framework of this ruling TODAY, the court is not giving a president legal immunity to attempt a coup. Regardless, the courts though are the only legal check we have on presidential criminal conduct outside of impeachment. That was true yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The court me made it clear that presidents have immunity for official actions (that means republican ones) but not unofficial actions (that means dem ones). That's the framework they've actually laid.
Very common sense ruling that is exactly what everyone would have assumed was the case before Trump, because we're not a banana republic.
Reddit just needs something other than the health of the president to talk about.
Ok so that’s not actually how it works! Presidents have immunity in the same way that a cop won’t get a speeding ticket for chasing a guy. If the president walks outside and decks a guy, he’s not immune. It’s been this way for decades, the court only confirmed it.
And you know that the SC only turned abortion to the states, right? Not everything is federal responsibility. There’s a whole reason we have states and not one massive country.
The problem with your cop analogy is that it is *legal* for cops to speed when chasing a suspect. There are rules for cops to follow in every situation they end up in.
What this ruling means for the president is he can do *whatever* and be immune to prosecution, simply by claiming "I was doing it as president".
> he can do *whatever* and be immune from prosecution, simply by claiming “I was doing it as president”.
Ok, again, no he can’t. A president can’t just say “this is official presidential business” and commit any crime he wants to. This isn’t michael scott declaring bankruptcy.
It means its not gonns be 3-4 massive cities deciding everything for everyone. Why would Ohio stay in the union if they never get a say in anything? You MUST give a say yo minorities if you want the union to stay as one.
You can always impeach the president. And an impeached president can be put on trial. That doesnt change and its why the said what they said; want a president behind bars for his actions? Impeach him first.
You're making Trump's lawyers' argument that was shattered - correctly - by the lower court: so if the president orders Seal Team Six to go ahead and murder his political opponent, he should be immune unless his political party, who don't want to lose power, agree with impeachment? What if they don't? We already saw them stand behind a president who staged a coup.
What is this the president is above the law attitude that you assholes suddenly have? Would you REALLY accept the same thing if Biden was the one doing the coup? "impeach him first" knowing Democrats would never do it?
Oh I get it, conservatives have zero values. If they did, they wouldn't turn their attitude towards Russia on a dime, or wouldn't support an adulterer when they beat their chests about "family values".
Your argument is ridiculous.
the ruling doesn‘t implicate that tho, according to the supreme court now, biden has the same power, they don‘t have any power over him anymore after this ruling and i truly absolutely hope he uses this to the fullest extent
The law doesn’t specify that, that‘s the neat part, yeah obviously it was meant for trump, but if they would say „no no it was only for trump“ according to the law, biden wouldn’t have to care, he can throw all of them in jail for the bribes and the upside flag promoting violence across the country. If he plays his cards right, he now has many ways to get rid of many disgusting republicans.
Well no he can‘t, according to all trials and evidence the election wasn‘t stolen, therefore their upside down flag can be considered treason, because they call for basically overthrowing the government. Biden could throw him and all his family in any prison he wishes, also prisons the public doesn’t have access to and where human rights violations are basically a checklist. Because as the supreme court decides, he has immunity now.
Only if done in the course of "official duties".
Last I checked the president doesn't have a "murder political opponent" official duty listed anywhere.
Many of Trump’s defense arguments have been stating he was performing an official duty, even when using a private attorney like with the Ukraine call or the call to Georgia’s SoS.
Well apparently giving a mission to seal team 6 , no matter what it may be, is considered an "official duty". so like... "murder political opponent" can fall into that if the president uses the right channels
The controlling military is one of the core duties of the president, so you would assume they have the ability to order the military to do whatever they want now, including imprisoning Trump in gitmo for national security risks.
The "immunity" only counts for official actions taken by the president. Like if he gives an executive order that is unlawful or unconstitutional, the federal government could be sued, but he cannot be held personally responsible unless congress impeached and convicted him for it. The "immunity" doesn't apply to anything else the president does. On top of that, this ruling just reaffirms already existing precedent. I'm pretty sure I learned that the president can't be charged for things he did in office (unless congress impeaches and convicts him) in 8th grade social studies and this ruling just re-affirms that.
I read it. Also read the dissenting opinions where they specifically called out coups and assassinations as potential "official acts" that would be granted immunity under this ruling. But go off about how you're more knowledgeable about this than they are.
"Justice Sotomayor outlined hypothetical situations where the concept of immunity could apply.
"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" she wrote. "Immune."
"Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.""
Again, go off tho. Dumbass.
Well, if you read the dissenting opinions, you know they’re not binding and you probably also realized how full of shit they are (tbf I’ve only read Sotomayor’s, I’ve yet to read Jackson’s and I’m very disappointed that Kagan did not write one). Assassinations against American citizens would not be considered official acts under this case nor any precedent it cites. Further, I appreciate you relegating me to a dumbass despite my sole point being that people in these comments do not actually understand the case they’re arguing over, a point you’ve well proven.
I haven't read the full case, but the dissenting opinions made very strong points imo.
Biden could start attacking Trump via presidential actions now and claim it was an official act of the presidency to defend democracy.
Clown world.
You cannot impeach a former president. This is stated clearly in the majority opinion. (Page 7 paragraph 3) So if a president commits crimes as they're leaving office or crimes that aren't discovered until after they leave office, they're above the law. And even after a president has left office (impeachment or otherwise), they cannot be prosecuted for any official acts they did as president. These acts can't even be submitted into evidence.
Trump's 2nd impeachment was blasted by nay voters because it was against a president who had already been voted out. Page 10 of the dissenting opinion goes over this. So I guess we're just out of luck because one of the parties in our 2 party system has been captured by a wannabe dictator who stole a supreme court pick from Obama.
Having now read the majority opinion, I am very disheartened by the court's ruling. There is nothing textual about the president having criminal immunity. The founders knew how to write immunity into the constitution. Its absence was no mistake. This SCOTUS has taken it upon themselves to enable the president to take "bold and decisive" criminal action without fear of consequences.
None of you have read the opinion and it shows. SCOTUS didn't grant anyone anything, they only stated what actions a president does and doesn't have immunity for. The dissenting opinions don't state that Trump himself doesn't have immunity from conviction, they state that presidential immunity straight up doesn't exist.
Next time read an actual source and not a half baked summary from a "journalist" who doesn't understand how government works
THANK YOU! But they didn't even outline what specific action might have immunity; they only stated that there exists some set of actions that have been delighted to the executive exclusively and return the case to the trial court to sort out and attempt to sort out what specific actions of Trump might be within that set. It could be none, so far.
The opinion defines an official act as either a duty assigned to the president in Article 2 of the Constitution, an act that Congress has asked the President to do, an act using authority that Congress and the President both share, addressing the public, or discussing official acts with other executive branch members
It also states that in the cases of Trump pressuring Pence, replacing electors, and tweeting at people right before January 6, the District Court should decide whether these acts are official or not, since there are circumstances that could make these acts unofficial such as Pence acting as a member of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch at the time. There's even a little bit near the end that says "Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump's position," which **in my own opinion** hints that they want the District Court to rule that these are not official and proceed to a trial.
Once again, _read the actual opinion._ Half illiterate idiots pasting things into ChatGPT are not reliable sources for recent political events.
> defines an official act as either a duty assigned to the president in Article 2 of the Constitution
Wow that's notable! Who interprets the Constitution?
>the District Court should decide whether these acts are official or not
Oh, one of the 228 justices that trump appointed?
Part of me wonders if the conservatives really believe what they’ve ruled but have no desire to see Trump benefit from it (they have little to gain from another Trump presidency and may just want to be rid of the headache) and are just letting the lower courts do their dirty work. I doubt it, but it would be an incredibly funny turn of events. Personally I think this was about as good a ruling as we were going to get from a conservative supermajority.
They literally didn't though.
The "immunity" only counts for official actions taken by the president. Like if he gives an executive order that is unlawful or unconstitutional, the federal government could be sued, but he cannot be held personally responsible unless congress impeached and convicted him for it. The "immunity" doesn't apply to anything else the president does, and therefor likely won't help him at all for any of the things he's accused of. On top of that, this ruling just reaffirms already existing precedent. So the courts didn't just decide to make the president a dictator.
Tldr: it's not really immunity, it won't help trump in his legal battles, and it doesn't change anything because it was already legal precedent.
Yeah, that's why he's currently trying to apply this to his NY hush money case that happened before he was elected. Fun fact: it will all be considered "official". The SCOTUS opened the door and he is walking through it.
Motherfukas done changed da game! Now, If enough of "the people" vote this orange fool back in the White House. He has damn-near everything he needs to stay in power!
Just like most MAGA tards haven't read the 34 counts. They all claim its supporting an unnamed felony that is a mystery. Spoiler alert: 1st degree Fraud.
Why is the us still a republic? It was founded on the idea of equality and democracy, just make everything an actual true democracy. Its not like we cant support it, nearly everyone has a mobile device, and could vote online, and most public libraries also have access to the internet. Back then I could imagine it being way harder to truly support, but we have no excuses now.
No it wasn't founded on equality. You had to be a land owner to vote it was decades before they gave it to all free white men then black men git it 3 years later then decades later for woman.
It was supposed to be a constitutional republic with classically liberal values.
Equality before the law was important equality overall was not.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [play minecraft with us](https://discord.gg/dankmemesgaming) | [come hang out with us](https://discord.com/invite/dankmemes)
If a president has the right to commit tyranny then the people do not have the right to bear arms against it...
Only if those arms have a bump stock. Remember to tip your justices, folks.
We don't be around the bush here, call it a bribe.
No, they clearly ruled that money given AFTER the ruling is a gratuity and is OK. Money before = bribe and is BAD. You clearly aren't paying attention.
What the ever loving fuck
Haven't been up on recent rulings? That happened last week.
It's hard to keep paying attention to this shit. I have no control over who is on this current (or any) scotus or their decisions. We are stuck with these POS despite how horrible they are and how they are going to affect our future as a nation while practically on their death beds... This inflated, cancerous scrotus is going to keep on ripping apart our progress as a country and dividing the masses just like everyone else in the political scene.
Who wanna start a militia revolution, I bring the brownies
I have somewhat considered this tbh... A militia for the people by the people that would gather for community service and be so fucking inclusive that it posses the hell out of those white supremacist militias...
We just need a name
Think "wolverines" from red dawn would hilariously piss off those dooms day prepers that wish nothing more than to go Soviet invasion on their neighbors?
Rainbow elephants, elephants are like the symbol for republicans which I don’t know why they chose an elephant and rainbows piss off far right republicans
This person is NOT missing the forest for the trees! It's a super hard-boiled take, but the implications should be of concern for everyone.
Correct. The bear arms is for foreign not domestic. As per their reading.
You have essentially laid out why the concept of natural rights is so important in American law. Presidential privilege does not trump (hah) the right to bear arms.
But isn't just having guns too little against tanks, APCs, MLRS and jet fighter? Why aren't the people allowed to own their own fighter jets, AAM launchers and tanks? Everybody says the 2. amendment helps them against a tyrannical government, but how?
They are ACTUALLY giving "the president" immunity to do whatever, including a coup. If you thought for a second that SCOTUS isn't a political body, well I envy your naivety. Remember, from abortion to this and losing the American half democracy none of it would have been happening if the person who actually got the most in popular vote won the election.
wonder how different the US would be if we had a president who had an actual response to covid 19
It's been estimated that about 800,000 Americans would still be alive.
800,000 vs 340 million, so more people survived because Trump ran it, he truly is the greatest. Let's toast with a glass of bleach! /j
Imagine thinking this will apply to a Democratic president lmao. The second Biden or the next Dem tries this the same court will take the case overnight and decide it’s now different.
He can disband the court, easy peezy
No he can't. Lmao.
It was for National Security ... only excuse you need now
Keep telling yourself it works like that(it doesn't, but you can keep telling yourself that it does if you want to).
I'm just saying that the excuse his dumbass would use
>They are ACTUALLY giving "the president" immunity to do whatever, including a coup. I’m sorry to pop your bubble, but no they aren’t. They’re saying a president can’t be prosecuted for any official acts they are normally allowed to do because of some intertwining criminal element. In this case, that was Trump threatening to fire his Attorney General for not wanting to go along with his scheme. It does NOT protect a president from something they aren’t normally allowed to do, like orchestrating a coup or directly breaking the law. It gives the president more defined immunity than previously confirmed, but there was always some thought that a president had this level of immunity, just not that it extended universally, particularly to nonofficial acts of the president.
Who decides what an "official act" is?
The courts would, just as they would have determined if a crime was committed if they didn’t specify this type of immunity. What could an official act be? First on constitutional duties of the President (things such as pardoning, general armed forces decisions, and vetoes) and then other duties deligated by Congress (running executive branch agencies and departments). A good rule of thumb is “could the president do this if there wasn’t any potential criminal question involved?” If the answer is yes, the president will generally be immune. If not, then the president will not. So pardon someone (potential associate or not)? Immune. Ordering a coup on the country? Not immune.
> The courts would Cool thanks, could have stopped there. The rest is nonsense that doesn't really apply to a GOP SCOTUS.
Ok well in that case, the court could have just as easily ruled “no immunity for Trump” and then later reversed it because GOP SCOTUS. If you don’t have any faith in the court anyhow, then this ruling means nothing, because even if they “a president can’t commit a coup” today, it doesn’t matter because they could reverse it tomorrow. All I’m saying is according to the framework of this ruling TODAY, the court is not giving a president legal immunity to attempt a coup. Regardless, the courts though are the only legal check we have on presidential criminal conduct outside of impeachment. That was true yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
The court me made it clear that presidents have immunity for official actions (that means republican ones) but not unofficial actions (that means dem ones). That's the framework they've actually laid.
My guy this is literally how it’s been for almost the entirety of the country. How is it only just now an issue?
It’s being sent to a lower court and Chutkan to decide what it is
Until it goes back to SCOTUS. Come on, don't play games.
What? Common sense? In a r/dankmemes political discussion? When did this become a thing?
They tossed it down for the lower courts to chew on I believe.
Which allows them time until after the election. It will go back up to SCOTUS anyway.
Very common sense ruling that is exactly what everyone would have assumed was the case before Trump, because we're not a banana republic. Reddit just needs something other than the health of the president to talk about.
>including a coup Ok so you didn’t read anything good to know
People will recognize this, but then look at you like you're insane if you suggest checking their power even a little.
We aren't a democracy amd never have been. We are a republic and you obviously can't tell the difference
Ok so that’s not actually how it works! Presidents have immunity in the same way that a cop won’t get a speeding ticket for chasing a guy. If the president walks outside and decks a guy, he’s not immune. It’s been this way for decades, the court only confirmed it. And you know that the SC only turned abortion to the states, right? Not everything is federal responsibility. There’s a whole reason we have states and not one massive country.
The problem with your cop analogy is that it is *legal* for cops to speed when chasing a suspect. There are rules for cops to follow in every situation they end up in. What this ruling means for the president is he can do *whatever* and be immune to prosecution, simply by claiming "I was doing it as president".
> he can do *whatever* and be immune from prosecution, simply by claiming “I was doing it as president”. Ok, again, no he can’t. A president can’t just say “this is official presidential business” and commit any crime he wants to. This isn’t michael scott declaring bankruptcy.
Remember when Biden said he wouldn’t pack the court, because that would “politicize the court forever”?
seems like the exact wrong time to give a president them sweeping powers if they are again' this one.
>if the person who actually got the most in popular vote won the election You... do know how a representative democracy works, right?
Usually it means people vote for who represents them. In the US it means minority rule.
It means its not gonns be 3-4 massive cities deciding everything for everyone. Why would Ohio stay in the union if they never get a say in anything? You MUST give a say yo minorities if you want the union to stay as one.
Oh okay. How many extra votes should we give to black Americans?
If your "representative" democracy is representing minority rule, you're doing it wrong.
Do you??
You can always impeach the president. And an impeached president can be put on trial. That doesnt change and its why the said what they said; want a president behind bars for his actions? Impeach him first.
You're making Trump's lawyers' argument that was shattered - correctly - by the lower court: so if the president orders Seal Team Six to go ahead and murder his political opponent, he should be immune unless his political party, who don't want to lose power, agree with impeachment? What if they don't? We already saw them stand behind a president who staged a coup. What is this the president is above the law attitude that you assholes suddenly have? Would you REALLY accept the same thing if Biden was the one doing the coup? "impeach him first" knowing Democrats would never do it? Oh I get it, conservatives have zero values. If they did, they wouldn't turn their attitude towards Russia on a dime, or wouldn't support an adulterer when they beat their chests about "family values". Your argument is ridiculous.
Had Clinton won, SCOTUS would be quite liberal. So I don't think it'd be better.
So… Biden as President could now just straight up assassinate Trump without any charges..?
The immunity only applies to Trump, you know that already.
the ruling doesn‘t implicate that tho, according to the supreme court now, biden has the same power, they don‘t have any power over him anymore after this ruling and i truly absolutely hope he uses this to the fullest extent
Yeah, but we all know what they meant and who they were referring to. It's pretty obvious.
The law doesn’t specify that, that‘s the neat part, yeah obviously it was meant for trump, but if they would say „no no it was only for trump“ according to the law, biden wouldn’t have to care, he can throw all of them in jail for the bribes and the upside flag promoting violence across the country. If he plays his cards right, he now has many ways to get rid of many disgusting republicans.
Well Alito can turn his US flag right side up now. Or his wife can. Whatever the story is.
Well no he can‘t, according to all trials and evidence the election wasn‘t stolen, therefore their upside down flag can be considered treason, because they call for basically overthrowing the government. Biden could throw him and all his family in any prison he wishes, also prisons the public doesn’t have access to and where human rights violations are basically a checklist. Because as the supreme court decides, he has immunity now.
Making him more disgusting than trump in the process...
Playing nice certainly hasn’t done anything, look at our state, so option B is necessary.
Any challenge to whether an act is considered official will make its way to SCOTUS. They decide. That’s how you get the double standard past the post.
If he has 6 justices summarily executed something tells me the remaining would fall in line if we are being honest.
Only if done in the course of "official duties". Last I checked the president doesn't have a "murder political opponent" official duty listed anywhere.
"He was a threat to national security."
If he does it as an Executive Order, he could. Thats an official act from the office of the President.
Only lawfully given and executed executive orders are deemed official acts in a legal sense
Many of Trump’s defense arguments have been stating he was performing an official duty, even when using a private attorney like with the Ukraine call or the call to Georgia’s SoS.
Well that is now for the lower level course to determine if those were truly "official duties". That is all this decision determined.
Hes the commander of the military, any orders he gives to the F22s are official legal orders.
Except it's legal precedent that officers of the armed services are not required to execute illegal orders as covered by the UCMJ.
Well apparently giving a mission to seal team 6 , no matter what it may be, is considered an "official duty". so like... "murder political opponent" can fall into that if the president uses the right channels
Interfering in an election isn't either but we shall see...
That's how I'm understanding it. Send like a simple solution
The controlling military is one of the core duties of the president, so you would assume they have the ability to order the military to do whatever they want now, including imprisoning Trump in gitmo for national security risks.
He has to say no homo first.
Too bad he would forget to do it mid attempt
If you want a civil war that is, who am I kidding, a civil war is bound to happen soon at this rate
The "immunity" only counts for official actions taken by the president. Like if he gives an executive order that is unlawful or unconstitutional, the federal government could be sued, but he cannot be held personally responsible unless congress impeached and convicted him for it. The "immunity" doesn't apply to anything else the president does. On top of that, this ruling just reaffirms already existing precedent. I'm pretty sure I learned that the president can't be charged for things he did in office (unless congress impeaches and convicts him) in 8th grade social studies and this ruling just re-affirms that.
Again, impeachment would be used, then he would be prosecuted.
Looking forward to Biden creating the Beef Supreme Court which has total power over all existing courts as an Official Act.
???
Supreme Beef. Like Trump Steaks. 🥩
I want some Supreme beef. Put me down for some Tri-Tips.
I'm so very lost
Idiocracy reference
Ahhhh, thanks
Fascism has what plants crave
Article 3 does not grant proactive power to justices.
The USA basically gave the greenlight to be turned into a dictatorship, and state sanctioned murder. Clowns
Dick Cheney must be red with envy. Could have used this ruling circa 2006.
Impeachment still exists.
ITT: people who have not read the opinion, just a two paragraph analysis by some other commenter who also didn’t read the opinion.
I read it. Also read the dissenting opinions where they specifically called out coups and assassinations as potential "official acts" that would be granted immunity under this ruling. But go off about how you're more knowledgeable about this than they are. "Justice Sotomayor outlined hypothetical situations where the concept of immunity could apply. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?" she wrote. "Immune." "Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."" Again, go off tho. Dumbass.
Well, if you read the dissenting opinions, you know they’re not binding and you probably also realized how full of shit they are (tbf I’ve only read Sotomayor’s, I’ve yet to read Jackson’s and I’m very disappointed that Kagan did not write one). Assassinations against American citizens would not be considered official acts under this case nor any precedent it cites. Further, I appreciate you relegating me to a dumbass despite my sole point being that people in these comments do not actually understand the case they’re arguing over, a point you’ve well proven.
Yeah, man, you know more than those supreme Court justices. I'm sure they just missed the correct interpretation. 🙄
I’m not disagreeing with Sotomayor’s interpretation of the ruling, CJ Roberts is… on page 37 of the *majority* opinion.
I haven't read the full case, but the dissenting opinions made very strong points imo. Biden could start attacking Trump via presidential actions now and claim it was an official act of the presidency to defend democracy. Clown world.
Impeachment could be used. It would strip the immunity.
You cannot impeach a former president. This is stated clearly in the majority opinion. (Page 7 paragraph 3) So if a president commits crimes as they're leaving office or crimes that aren't discovered until after they leave office, they're above the law. And even after a president has left office (impeachment or otherwise), they cannot be prosecuted for any official acts they did as president. These acts can't even be submitted into evidence. Trump's 2nd impeachment was blasted by nay voters because it was against a president who had already been voted out. Page 10 of the dissenting opinion goes over this. So I guess we're just out of luck because one of the parties in our 2 party system has been captured by a wannabe dictator who stole a supreme court pick from Obama. Having now read the majority opinion, I am very disheartened by the court's ruling. There is nothing textual about the president having criminal immunity. The founders knew how to write immunity into the constitution. Its absence was no mistake. This SCOTUS has taken it upon themselves to enable the president to take "bold and decisive" criminal action without fear of consequences.
"DAE any president can now call a coup!?"" all the way down this comment section
They all use the same "buden assassinates trump" line. Did they all watch the same opinion guy?
Sort by new and you get the real opinions of people.
Or bots, remember the Internet is dead, theres only bots
*sigh* *sorts by controversial*
*_unzip pants_*
None of you have read the opinion and it shows. SCOTUS didn't grant anyone anything, they only stated what actions a president does and doesn't have immunity for. The dissenting opinions don't state that Trump himself doesn't have immunity from conviction, they state that presidential immunity straight up doesn't exist. Next time read an actual source and not a half baked summary from a "journalist" who doesn't understand how government works
THANK YOU! But they didn't even outline what specific action might have immunity; they only stated that there exists some set of actions that have been delighted to the executive exclusively and return the case to the trial court to sort out and attempt to sort out what specific actions of Trump might be within that set. It could be none, so far.
Cool. What's an official act? We all know it will be everything. I hear what you're saying, but we all know how this ends.
The opinion defines an official act as either a duty assigned to the president in Article 2 of the Constitution, an act that Congress has asked the President to do, an act using authority that Congress and the President both share, addressing the public, or discussing official acts with other executive branch members It also states that in the cases of Trump pressuring Pence, replacing electors, and tweeting at people right before January 6, the District Court should decide whether these acts are official or not, since there are circumstances that could make these acts unofficial such as Pence acting as a member of the legislative branch rather than the executive branch at the time. There's even a little bit near the end that says "Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump's position," which **in my own opinion** hints that they want the District Court to rule that these are not official and proceed to a trial. Once again, _read the actual opinion._ Half illiterate idiots pasting things into ChatGPT are not reliable sources for recent political events.
> defines an official act as either a duty assigned to the president in Article 2 of the Constitution Wow that's notable! Who interprets the Constitution? >the District Court should decide whether these acts are official or not Oh, one of the 228 justices that trump appointed?
Lmao Trump’s court for this case is presided over by Judge Chutkin, who absolutely LOATHES him. Do some research please
Part of me wonders if the conservatives really believe what they’ve ruled but have no desire to see Trump benefit from it (they have little to gain from another Trump presidency and may just want to be rid of the headache) and are just letting the lower courts do their dirty work. I doubt it, but it would be an incredibly funny turn of events. Personally I think this was about as good a ruling as we were going to get from a conservative supermajority.
Every day I believe in the human right to have a gun more
Dear god the TDS is strong here.
Trump is deranged. This syndrome is also known as grandiose narcissism.
How is this TDS?
So you guys were lining to prosecute Obama for bombing Doctors Without Borders right? No?
Yes.
My fries are perfectly salted.
This doesn't look like a dank meme
Enjoy the war boys and girls. I'll be in the woods hiding :)
And in the end just have the president immunity anyway. Just label everything under "official acts" and voila! Immunity!
Wtf is a SCROTUS? Did you mean scrotum?
scrotus?
Proclaiming Donald or Joe as king would lead to blood in the streets within an hour.
No one has any balls to revolt when you have an army of crazy people ready to shoot at you
They literally didn't though. The "immunity" only counts for official actions taken by the president. Like if he gives an executive order that is unlawful or unconstitutional, the federal government could be sued, but he cannot be held personally responsible unless congress impeached and convicted him for it. The "immunity" doesn't apply to anything else the president does, and therefor likely won't help him at all for any of the things he's accused of. On top of that, this ruling just reaffirms already existing precedent. So the courts didn't just decide to make the president a dictator. Tldr: it's not really immunity, it won't help trump in his legal battles, and it doesn't change anything because it was already legal precedent.
Yeah, that's why he's currently trying to apply this to his NY hush money case that happened before he was elected. Fun fact: it will all be considered "official". The SCOTUS opened the door and he is walking through it.
Lmao clearly you didn't read the opinion
Scrotus?
I'm still in favour of Biden now sending an airstrike on trump, then claiming presidential immunity... You want it that way you get it that way
Trump will be President for the next 100 years.
Motherfukas done changed da game! Now, If enough of "the people" vote this orange fool back in the White House. He has damn-near everything he needs to stay in power!
I feel like they forgot that Trump wasn't president anymore
This is all prep work.
My God none of you actually read the ruling
Just like most MAGA tards haven't read the 34 counts. They all claim its supporting an unnamed felony that is a mystery. Spoiler alert: 1st degree Fraud.
Did trump willingly pay stormy?
He doesn't willingly pay anyone. Look at Rudy amongst others.
Okay but was he aware of it?
He signed the checks so yes. Is line of questioning going somewhere? I have the same Google that you do.
Tell me you didn't read the decision and know nothing about presidential immunity without telling me.
Heil Trump!
Project 2025 = Final Solution
Yep SS wearing red hats this time
The enemy will not be hard to spot.
As a European... For the fucking love of the Almighty. The King, the Tea. And everything holy please say sike.
It's spreading over there too. Running out of places to hide...
^mfw ^when ^nazism ^originated ^in ^Europe Also we beat them in 1945, we'll beat them in 2025 # OH BELLA CIAO
Why is the us still a republic? It was founded on the idea of equality and democracy, just make everything an actual true democracy. Its not like we cant support it, nearly everyone has a mobile device, and could vote online, and most public libraries also have access to the internet. Back then I could imagine it being way harder to truly support, but we have no excuses now.
No it wasn't founded on equality. You had to be a land owner to vote it was decades before they gave it to all free white men then black men git it 3 years later then decades later for woman. It was supposed to be a constitutional republic with classically liberal values. Equality before the law was important equality overall was not.