455
Biden Campaign Brushes Off Idea of Reforming the Supreme Court
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
455 points (93.8% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2668 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You assumed wrong, as the supreme court said the trails court will determine what is and isn't an official act. What's the problem?
First responders get immunity while they are doing their duty. Judges do too. What exactly is the problem? Breaking the law CANNOT be an official act.
Why exactly do you think the Supreme Court made a whole ruling about former-presidents being immune to prosecution for official acts if you think breaking the law makes something not an official act? There would never be a case when the president would need this protection because they were either making an official act or making an illegal act, never both.
And just to be clear, you're wrong and all the justices on both sides are explicitly talking about doing illegal things while also doing official things.
Because they are protecting our republic. A president shouldn't fear being prosecuted by someone for their official acts when they are out of office, such as a political rival.
And no, something illegal cannot be official.
If something illegal cannot be official then this protection never applies. Someone would prosecute him for an illegal act, he'd invoke the defense of doing an official act, and then the judge would say "but the conduct you're being prosecuted for is illegal, so if you did it, it couldn't have been an official act and immunity does not apply".
And again, none of the justices on either side of the ruling are making this absurd and nonsensical claim.
None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it's in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.
Breaking the law has been an official act for fucking ever. Did Washington break the law when he became the first president of the United States? Obama droned a US citizen. Andrew Jackson said fuck you to the supreme Court and enforced the trail of tears on the sad remnants of the native population that didn't die to illness, battle, or reprisal attacks.
The problem, one of many, is the courts. These fucking judges get appointed en masse. Fucking scumbags. And if you have enough money, clout, or both you get to appeal to the Trump supreme court. I wonder if they would rule differently on an act depending on which party had the presidency.