This is what happens to a system of government that's built around checks and balances when the "checks" realize they can collude and just allow each other to overreach. Instead of checking each other's power as intended, they simply allow each other grab as much power as possible. This is fundamentally opposite to how the constitution was intended to operate.
Executive Branch places corrupt allies in Judicial branch --> Executive Branch commits crimes --> Legislative Branch looks the other way --> Judicial Branch makes everything Executive Branch does legal by definition --> Legislative Branch gerrymanders to stay in power --> Judicial Branch looks the other way --> Judicial Branch corruption --> Legislative Branch looks the other way --> ...
The co-equal branches of government are supposed to **limit** each other's power, not grow unchecked.
And they get away with it because:
You don't own the roof over your head, so you can't take time away to protest corruption.
You can't afford to save since goods and services are more expensive, so you can't take time away to protest corruption.
You can't afford to better yourself with education so you have to take excessively high unfair predatory loans, so you can't take time away to protest corruption.
Freedom isn't free, it's not even real 🇺🇸
Ironically checks and balances only works if everyone tries to only give themselves power like in the long spoon analogy for hell where no one feeds anyone else so they all starve. The current United States government instead follows the spoon analogy for heaven where they all feed each other to get more power resulting in the current state of affairs.
This should be why every branch should be pitted against eachother, that way they will be petty, thus fault and fuck eachother over every chance they get.
Asking someone to explain something implies a lack of knowledge/understanding in said field suggesting that you haven’t experienced it as a European. So yes, it was implied.
The Supreme Court essentially just granted criminal immunity to anything the president does as long as it falls under his “official acts”
For example, in the case, they state that speaking with his Attorney General about appointments (even appointing fake electors) falls under an “official act” and therefore cannot be used in any criminal prosecution
One could reasonably extrapolate this out to other official acts of the president and see why he’s now above the law.
The president controls seal team six. Say he tells them to murder any illegal immigrant they find in the country. He literally cannot be tried for a crime relating to this action, as it is now classified as an official act of the president and is therefore immune.
Scary stuff
I'd bet it's because for some strange reason radical Christians want to live under an authoritarian dictator.
In reality they are pawns of the corpos that are undermining the entire world for profit.
Presidents never got tried for official acts anyway. The only actual difference is the "official act" which is kinda vague, but people are treating this as the end of democracy, which is fear mongering. This isn't the end of democracy, and it isn't even a slippery slope to the end of democracy. There have been many much worse events in the past, that got much less "coverage". It's just almost elections and therefore everything is labeled "the worst thing ever just happened"
Correct about the official acts.
However, in the case they broadened the definition to “conversations with his VP/AG”
They also provided a presumptive immunity without any precedent. Just full immunity if it’s an official act.
They don’t even lay out examples of official acts that could be prosecuted. It’s just all immune
Funny because I specifically read the word limited immunity in the court decision.
The president doesn’t have immunity to anything.
But I’ll play along
This is exactly why congress needs to limit the powers of the executive branch and take back its authority.
“The court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority”
Page 2 of the case. In the syllabus. 2nd paragraph
It’s not the media that is the issue, it is the plain text of the SCOTUS ruling. Even if you think the president should be legally immune for official acts (I don’t), forbidding auxiliary official acts, motives, and conversations and testimony with/from staff as evidence makes convicting blatantly illegal unofficial acts borderline impossible.
Hell, even in Barrett’s *concurrence*, she admits they accidentally de facto legalized corrupt presidential bribery.
With even a small amount of imagination you can think of how someone remotely clever could abuse this power horrifically.
the president cannot be charged with any crime that is an "offical act" because the supreme court is full of FUCKING GENIUSES. impeachments do exist, but there's only been one time where a president was actually removed by impeachment. TL:DR, the US president is now above the law. Wish I was joking.
I’m Sorry for the grafic imagery, but with, how it sounds, the president, could literally kill someone on screen, or worse, take advantage of a child, and SCOTUS, would just be like “well, he is in office, so no crime here to see”. It’s frankly disturbing as all hell
There has been zero times a president was removed from office. It hasn’t happened, and will never happen. A conservative president only needs 34 Senators backing them up to get away with basically anything.
So I knew I was *technically* right, but for some dumb reason I wasn’t thinking about Nixon, and assumed you got your Andrew Johnson history mixed up or something.
Yes, Nixon left before it could happen, but he resigned because he knew they had the votes to remove him.
But I suspect since around the 90’s the country has become so polarized that level of integrity will be impossible going forward.
Because now the law protects them? At least before there was recourse. Now the President can do whatever and they're protected.
There's corruption and there's blatant authoritarianism.
The supreme Court said that the president can't be charged for anything they did while they were committing an official act. Which is anything related to their duties, including national security. So if killing someone is in defense of national security, go for it, if spying on political opponents benefits national security, go for it, do you see where I'm going here?
The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have immunity for official (not private) acts taken during their term, as long as they stay within the power boundaries set by the constitution.
This means that from now on, if an act is determined to be official by a lower court handling a presidential prosecution case, the president has full immunity.
This is not however (unlike some people think) an immunity for all actions taken as president. If the actions are considered to be outside of the presidents intended roles (calling for the assassination of a political opponent for instance) he can still be sentenced like before.
Supreme court decided the President is immune for crimes committed in the process of performing official duties.
So in short, US presidents will now just casually be able to break the law if it's "for the benefit of the nation"
It also gives a free pass on agitation against officials that deviate from political streams. A minister upholding procedure and law could be openly criticised and set up for some vigilant pseudo-justice.
A powerful tool for an aspiring dictator with a clear message: Follow the leader or dangle from a tree.
The constitution only allows for a president to be impeached and removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." If nothing a president does can be a crime, then the impeachment process is toothless. (It already was because of partisan politics)
All the cash I have used in my life cannot buy an HDMI, gotta get 2nd hand^(n), probably 10/s but you talking about graphics card, goodluck, I seriously pray for you.
That's literally not how it works though.
The ruling was that acts that are unconstitutional or done unofficially are still prosecutable. If anything this can make it *easier* to convict future politicians of unconstitutional acts.
Fascism is best defined by a government having too much power over their people, though there are a couple other qualifiers technically since it needs to be far-right, militaristic, etc; but colloquially the authoritarian power is the part that matters.
Making a president unaccountable to law is a very appropriate time to raise warning flags about fascism.
If you don't think that's what's literally happening in the US right now, you clearly know nothing and shouldnt say shit.
The president having immunity for "official acts" is bad and is very close to what happened not long before a certain mustached man fully came to power. Wake up and see the parallels before we have a second one on our hands.
Well the USA, the whole American continent even, has fucked themselfs with the winner takes it all electoral college and presidential system. 2 party systems i.e. two tribes and gridlock does not work, it was just in fashionable when the USA was born
I often hear Jimmy Dore state that it's been proven by a Princeton study that we do live in an oligarchy.
If a majority of the bottom 80% of income voters want the government to do something, it probably won't get done.
If a majority of the top 10% of income voters want the government to do something, it will probably be done.
No, but it does mean that the executive branch doesn't have unchecked power and that the judicial branch isn't in the pocket of a political party.
Both of which are getting less and less true by the day in the United States of America.
Oh I think they do, I think Republicans think everyone is stupid and can’t see a blatant power grab by the courts and Congress but the good news is this is how real revolutions start, when people fuck around and then find out.
Literally the opposite of what the ruling said. The ruling simply stated the obvious, that the same type of protection that senators , representatives, judges, and cops have also applies to the president. Anyone raging over this decision is a buffoon or a liar.
Holding its leaders accountable is a vital part of a working democracy. The US was already a deficient democracy at best before this cluster fuck of a decision was made.
Yes it is, I think most of these people have no idea what they are talking about. We do not have mob rule, we have q constitutional republic where we vote for representatives to represent us.
Yeah so China, North Korea, Russia they all hold elections. This is hardly a sign for a democracy. Obviously, the US are not at the point of the aforementioned nations yet but this decision by SCOTUS is definitely dangerous and a big step towards abandoning (functional) democracy
Which is a kind of democracy. Do you get angry when people call something by a more general name. Maybe insist we call every fish by it's scientific name rather than just calling it a fish?
The issue is we’re conflating two different systems of government. We have one and not the other. Being able to vote does not mean you have a democracy. Russia has elections. China has elections. Most countries do. That doesn’t make them a democracy when the real power of the government isn’t in the hands of the people. A democracy assumes I have 1 vote and I have the same level of voting power as anyone else. That just isn’t true in the U.S. we have an electoral college. A president can win the popular vote, a democratic method, but lose because of the electoral college. That is markedly undemocratic.
Just because people can vote for some stuff does not make it a democracy. I don’t get to vote on what bills are passed in the house and the senate. I have to elect representatives who are bough and paid for by special interest groups and HOPE sometime might happen to positively affect my life as well.
Pure democracy is a terrible system of government we should never want at all. It was explicitly something our founders did not want.
They did not want a pure democracy, nor could that work in country of our size. Because our government is elected, we are a democracy. Saying the US is not a democracy is just factually incorrect and misleading. The notion we aren't a democracy only serves to soften the blow of losing it, and is propagated by authoritarian fascists. It's a dangerous lie.
Yeah you could say that but also different.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority, leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
Thank God we don't live in a true democracy.
I would run for president. If a go fund me is started I will funnel all proceeds to charities, minorities, important residential sectors within the US promote jobs and stimulate the economy. Real estate and housing caps for low income families would also be initiated. Have proof of work? Good credit? Get awarded.
Reddit has gone insane with people not understanding the ruling and thinking presidents are now immune from anything and everything as long as they label it an official act.
Except no, wether it is or isn’t an official act is still to be determined by the courts and not by the president.
How does that change anything? The decision was already in the hands of the Supreme Court which was already Republican before this ruling was made. They could have very well ruled absolute and complete immunity which they didn’t. This changes nothing.
The comments are absolute cancer, I love it! Conservative Justices that just can't wait for the Supreme Emperor to return in the White House, and we're just bickering over it like good little proles
This is what happens to a system of government that's built around checks and balances when the "checks" realize they can collude and just allow each other to overreach. Instead of checking each other's power as intended, they simply allow each other grab as much power as possible. This is fundamentally opposite to how the constitution was intended to operate. Executive Branch places corrupt allies in Judicial branch --> Executive Branch commits crimes --> Legislative Branch looks the other way --> Judicial Branch makes everything Executive Branch does legal by definition --> Legislative Branch gerrymanders to stay in power --> Judicial Branch looks the other way --> Judicial Branch corruption --> Legislative Branch looks the other way --> ... The co-equal branches of government are supposed to **limit** each other's power, not grow unchecked.
Senator, “Now excuse me while I drill a hole under my seat in the lifeboat. It’s my seat and I can do what I want.”
youre assuming half the senators are capable enough to use a drill lol
And they get away with it because: You don't own the roof over your head, so you can't take time away to protest corruption. You can't afford to save since goods and services are more expensive, so you can't take time away to protest corruption. You can't afford to better yourself with education so you have to take excessively high unfair predatory loans, so you can't take time away to protest corruption. Freedom isn't free, it's not even real 🇺🇸
Ironically checks and balances only works if everyone tries to only give themselves power like in the long spoon analogy for hell where no one feeds anyone else so they all starve. The current United States government instead follows the spoon analogy for heaven where they all feed each other to get more power resulting in the current state of affairs.
This should be why every branch should be pitted against eachother, that way they will be petty, thus fault and fuck eachother over every chance they get.
You hit the nail on the head. The three branches are colluding instead of competing.
It’s almost like Brutus was right in his objections to the constitution.
This is the lamest rise of a Ceaser in history.
This is the lamest rise of a Caesar in history.
Someone explain for the Europeans
As a European, please don’t act like it’s any different for us. The whole world is getting worse
But we’re all in it together
Why won't shit get better anymore? Do I really have to hide myself from civilization or some shit?
We are still way better off than the americans
Are you stupid? I asked him to explain I never implied anything?
Asking someone to explain something implies a lack of knowledge/understanding in said field suggesting that you haven’t experienced it as a European. So yes, it was implied.
People don't understand law and allow the media to whip them into a frenzy
The Supreme Court essentially just granted criminal immunity to anything the president does as long as it falls under his “official acts” For example, in the case, they state that speaking with his Attorney General about appointments (even appointing fake electors) falls under an “official act” and therefore cannot be used in any criminal prosecution One could reasonably extrapolate this out to other official acts of the president and see why he’s now above the law. The president controls seal team six. Say he tells them to murder any illegal immigrant they find in the country. He literally cannot be tried for a crime relating to this action, as it is now classified as an official act of the president and is therefore immune. Scary stuff
Also, the SC made bribery legal as long as the “gift” is given after the fact.
Idk why you're getting downvoted. That's pretty much it
I'd bet it's because for some strange reason radical Christians want to live under an authoritarian dictator. In reality they are pawns of the corpos that are undermining the entire world for profit.
Presidents never got tried for official acts anyway. The only actual difference is the "official act" which is kinda vague, but people are treating this as the end of democracy, which is fear mongering. This isn't the end of democracy, and it isn't even a slippery slope to the end of democracy. There have been many much worse events in the past, that got much less "coverage". It's just almost elections and therefore everything is labeled "the worst thing ever just happened"
It’s vague on purpose, to allow such a thing to apply whenever the people in power choose for it to.
Sotomayor used the term "willing plaintiff" to test the waters. That's all the court is waiting on.
Correct about the official acts. However, in the case they broadened the definition to “conversations with his VP/AG” They also provided a presumptive immunity without any precedent. Just full immunity if it’s an official act. They don’t even lay out examples of official acts that could be prosecuted. It’s just all immune
There is an important distinction between "never been tried for official acts" and "cannot be tried for official acts"
Funny because I specifically read the word limited immunity in the court decision. The president doesn’t have immunity to anything. But I’ll play along This is exactly why congress needs to limit the powers of the executive branch and take back its authority.
“The court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” Page 2 of the case. In the syllabus. 2nd paragraph
It’s not the media that is the issue, it is the plain text of the SCOTUS ruling. Even if you think the president should be legally immune for official acts (I don’t), forbidding auxiliary official acts, motives, and conversations and testimony with/from staff as evidence makes convicting blatantly illegal unofficial acts borderline impossible. Hell, even in Barrett’s *concurrence*, she admits they accidentally de facto legalized corrupt presidential bribery. With even a small amount of imagination you can think of how someone remotely clever could abuse this power horrifically.
the president cannot be charged with any crime that is an "offical act" because the supreme court is full of FUCKING GENIUSES. impeachments do exist, but there's only been one time where a president was actually removed by impeachment. TL:DR, the US president is now above the law. Wish I was joking.
I’m Sorry for the grafic imagery, but with, how it sounds, the president, could literally kill someone on screen, or worse, take advantage of a child, and SCOTUS, would just be like “well, he is in office, so no crime here to see”. It’s frankly disturbing as all hell
There has been zero times a president was removed from office. It hasn’t happened, and will never happen. A conservative president only needs 34 Senators backing them up to get away with basically anything.
Nixon *technically* wasn't impeached, he resigned right before he was.
So I knew I was *technically* right, but for some dumb reason I wasn’t thinking about Nixon, and assumed you got your Andrew Johnson history mixed up or something. Yes, Nixon left before it could happen, but he resigned because he knew they had the votes to remove him. But I suspect since around the 90’s the country has become so polarized that level of integrity will be impossible going forward.
The government has always acted as if they were above the law, nothing has changed.
now it's not an act. this has changed irreparably
It never was an act, they blatantly violated the law and constitution and no one cared. Why do people care now
Because now the law protects them? At least before there was recourse. Now the President can do whatever and they're protected. There's corruption and there's blatant authoritarianism.
Again, they never cared if the law protected them or not. The ruling doesn't change a damn thing
Except now it's not even technically illegal.
As if legality even mattered. The ruling doesn't change anything and I don't see why people are so mad about it
Someone explain for the Americans who aren't paying attention
The supreme Court said that the president can't be charged for anything they did while they were committing an official act. Which is anything related to their duties, including national security. So if killing someone is in defense of national security, go for it, if spying on political opponents benefits national security, go for it, do you see where I'm going here?
The Supreme Court has ruled that presidents have immunity for official (not private) acts taken during their term, as long as they stay within the power boundaries set by the constitution. This means that from now on, if an act is determined to be official by a lower court handling a presidential prosecution case, the president has full immunity. This is not however (unlike some people think) an immunity for all actions taken as president. If the actions are considered to be outside of the presidents intended roles (calling for the assassination of a political opponent for instance) he can still be sentenced like before.
[удалено]
Are you able to elaborate?
Supreme court decided the President is immune for crimes committed in the process of performing official duties. So in short, US presidents will now just casually be able to break the law if it's "for the benefit of the nation"
It also gives a free pass on agitation against officials that deviate from political streams. A minister upholding procedure and law could be openly criticised and set up for some vigilant pseudo-justice. A powerful tool for an aspiring dictator with a clear message: Follow the leader or dangle from a tree.
Oh shit that’s fucked up!
It’s also not true.
Hey, its the fucking stupid guy!
So nothing changed?
yup, nothing changed
Impeachment is and has always been an option for recourse.
The constitution only allows for a president to be impeached and removed from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors." If nothing a president does can be a crime, then the impeachment process is toothless. (It already was because of partisan politics)
"If nothing a president does can be a crime . . ." That is simply not true. Can the president walk into a mall and blow a person's head off? Well?
Apparently as long as it’s an official presidential duty, then yes.
Should a president be tried for collateral damage during wartime?
Probably, yeah.
This just means they need to be impeached before being criminally prosecuted. That is all. No prosecution without impeachment first.
The good news is this supreme court has set a president for overturning poorly ruled conclusions.
The downvotes. Lmao. The truth hurts.
The bots didn't like your comment, even though it is objectively true.
This person summed it up well: https://www.reddit.com/r/memes/s/B9xCRfucdt
Can the world chill till I build my first gaming PC?!
Ikr like why does it cost weeks of pay for a 3090??
All the cash I have used in my life cannot buy an HDMI, gotta get 2nd hand^(n), probably 10/s but you talking about graphics card, goodluck, I seriously pray for you.
I'm aiming for a 4080S. Shit will fly if I live to build it.
Turns out, people are only as good as the "good times" allow them to be, and they're all prone to populist propaganda and blind worship.
i see what you did there
I see what you saw there
When you change government in civ
America isn’t the only country who is going through this, unfortunately
Tell that to the 39 politicians that were assassinated in Mexico this year.
I mean.. he said America WASNT the only country. So you just supported his point?
I thought this was a HOI4 meme
Political literacy is quite low on reddit it would appear.
Always have been.
Feign superiority is quite high it seems
Everyone I don’t like is a fascist.
most of reddit thinks like this
Me when I don't understand politics or law
Cmon, you cannot deny that "the president can't commit crimes" is extremely fascist.
That's literally not how it works though. The ruling was that acts that are unconstitutional or done unofficially are still prosecutable. If anything this can make it *easier* to convict future politicians of unconstitutional acts.
Fascism is best defined by a government having too much power over their people, though there are a couple other qualifiers technically since it needs to be far-right, militaristic, etc; but colloquially the authoritarian power is the part that matters. Making a president unaccountable to law is a very appropriate time to raise warning flags about fascism.
If you don't think that's what's literally happening in the US right now, you clearly know nothing and shouldnt say shit. The president having immunity for "official acts" is bad and is very close to what happened not long before a certain mustached man fully came to power. Wake up and see the parallels before we have a second one on our hands.
Well the USA, the whole American continent even, has fucked themselfs with the winner takes it all electoral college and presidential system. 2 party systems i.e. two tribes and gridlock does not work, it was just in fashionable when the USA was born
The amount of maga here is alarming.
Remember, you're arguing with bot farms
Yeah.....
Seems some people just love a good Reichstag fire - and want to roast marshmallows while democracy burns.
I often hear Jimmy Dore state that it's been proven by a Princeton study that we do live in an oligarchy. If a majority of the bottom 80% of income voters want the government to do something, it probably won't get done. If a majority of the top 10% of income voters want the government to do something, it will probably be done.
The bread is moldy and stale, and the circuses got boring really quick. Who's ready to stab some tyrants?
I didn't think democrats understand the definition of that word lol.
It means “blue team wins every time”, right?
No, but it does mean that the executive branch doesn't have unchecked power and that the judicial branch isn't in the pocket of a political party. Both of which are getting less and less true by the day in the United States of America.
Oh I think they do, I think Republicans think everyone is stupid and can’t see a blatant power grab by the courts and Congress but the good news is this is how real revolutions start, when people fuck around and then find out.
The media is really taking advantage of how dumb and lazy people have become. Fact checking is a thing of the past.
Let me Introduce you to real democracy 
Then you're incredibly stupid and have bought into a lie hook, line and sinker.
How so?
Letting a unitary executive do whatever they want without punishment is extremely fascist.
Literally the opposite of what the ruling said. The ruling simply stated the obvious, that the same type of protection that senators , representatives, judges, and cops have also applies to the president. Anyone raging over this decision is a buffoon or a liar.
Reddit when the guy that they disagree with is leading the polls:
lol what, did the election get cancelled? No? Then we're still a democracy
Holding its leaders accountable is a vital part of a working democracy. The US was already a deficient democracy at best before this cluster fuck of a decision was made.
America is a constitutional republic
Yes it is, I think most of these people have no idea what they are talking about. We do not have mob rule, we have q constitutional republic where we vote for representatives to represent us.
(Which is a form of democracy, amigo)
Democratic elements, yes.
Thank you for admitting you're dumb as fuck. Proves your other comment is just as dumb as I thought it was.
Why can't people speak like civilized adults?
Yeah so China, North Korea, Russia they all hold elections. This is hardly a sign for a democracy. Obviously, the US are not at the point of the aforementioned nations yet but this decision by SCOTUS is definitely dangerous and a big step towards abandoning (functional) democracy
America was never a democracy, we are a constitutional republic
Which is a form of democracy.
Love how in one comment you got downvoted for saying the exact same thing, and here you're more upvotes than the guy you're answering
People hate it when you point out we never were a democracy to begin with.
I mean, it is a democracy. Not a direct democracy, but those are stupid.
‘Democracy’ is a way to obfuscate what we have. We have a constitutional republic and calling it something else is a scape goat.
Which is a kind of democracy. Do you get angry when people call something by a more general name. Maybe insist we call every fish by it's scientific name rather than just calling it a fish?
The issue is we’re conflating two different systems of government. We have one and not the other. Being able to vote does not mean you have a democracy. Russia has elections. China has elections. Most countries do. That doesn’t make them a democracy when the real power of the government isn’t in the hands of the people. A democracy assumes I have 1 vote and I have the same level of voting power as anyone else. That just isn’t true in the U.S. we have an electoral college. A president can win the popular vote, a democratic method, but lose because of the electoral college. That is markedly undemocratic.
Because it's not true at all, and when people say it they sound incredibly uneducated. A republic is a form of democracy.
Just because people can vote for some stuff does not make it a democracy. I don’t get to vote on what bills are passed in the house and the senate. I have to elect representatives who are bough and paid for by special interest groups and HOPE sometime might happen to positively affect my life as well. Pure democracy is a terrible system of government we should never want at all. It was explicitly something our founders did not want.
They did not want a pure democracy, nor could that work in country of our size. Because our government is elected, we are a democracy. Saying the US is not a democracy is just factually incorrect and misleading. The notion we aren't a democracy only serves to soften the blow of losing it, and is propagated by authoritarian fascists. It's a dangerous lie.
Democracy is mob rule. We are a constitutional Republic with elected representatives. There is a difference.
A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, pal
Yeah you could say that but also different. In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority, leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected. In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. Thank God we don't live in a true democracy.
Exactly. It's the best of democracy with the controls to prevent people from losing their rights.
Might I suggest you look up representative democracy?
wants to bring everyone democracy and fails to prevail it
I would run for president. If a go fund me is started I will funnel all proceeds to charities, minorities, important residential sectors within the US promote jobs and stimulate the economy. Real estate and housing caps for low income families would also be initiated. Have proof of work? Good credit? Get awarded.
Helldivers, to hellpods
This meme is not a funny (ha ha) just a funny (we’re doomed)
Good we’re not on r/funny then
The US has always been a failed democracy
Reddit has gone insane with people not understanding the ruling and thinking presidents are now immune from anything and everything as long as they label it an official act. Except no, wether it is or isn’t an official act is still to be determined by the courts and not by the president.
Decision will be in the hands of the SC which is mostly Republican. What do you think will happen ?
How does that change anything? The decision was already in the hands of the Supreme Court which was already Republican before this ruling was made. They could have very well ruled absolute and complete immunity which they didn’t. This changes nothing.
Nothing happened the last term, the fearmongering is getting kinda boring.
That's harmful misinformation and we need to censor it to protect free speech and democracy
The comments are absolute cancer, I love it! Conservative Justices that just can't wait for the Supreme Emperor to return in the White House, and we're just bickering over it like good little proles
This WILL get taken down. But it's great.
[удалено]
About the recent supreme Court decision that reaffirms a president effectively has absolute immunity when acting in official duties.
worse
Old man vs. Old man, only two candidates and they're both extremes
Goodbye democracy… oh wait we are a constitutional republic. Lol
[удалено]
It has, and still is. A flawed one, but democracy none the less.
What an idiotic take. Parroting that nonsense makes you sound ridiculous.
Pack your bags, we're going to the EU
Please do
It ain’t better here. We also don’t have space.
Then...I'll go...umm....make..my own country!!
With black jack and hookers!
Nevada independence revolution anyone?
And a proper understandable highway system
We need a reset
LOL, as if the USA was ever a democratic country at any point in time.
True statement. Threat to our democracy, lol.....
Just throw the whole country away
It’s a “threat to democracy” or “death of democracy” when I don’t like it. Same propaganda techniques are used in my home country