https://scored.co/p/17tLKTfSCP/breaking-in-trump-v-united-state/c
Link to ruling (PDF with ridiculous margins)
Better threads than the shit one I linked:
https://scored.co/c/TheDonald/p/17tLKTfimR/breaking-scotus-sides-with-donal/c
https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dsue93/supreme_court_holds_63_in_trump_v_us_that_there/
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1dsudmm/supreme_court_presidential_immunity_ruling/
https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1dsueha/supreme_court_holds_63_in_trump_v_us_that_there/
News articles:
Various seethe etc:
https://x.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1807784154118992243
https://x.com/DashDobrofsky/status/1807792596561141919
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Actually read through most of it. Cliff notes:
Lower courts said there was no presidential immunity at all, told they were wrong
They said his conversations with the AG over voter fraud was protected because investigating crimes is under the presidential purview
His conversations with Pence and others might be protected, but a court would actually have to make a decision on it
There is a ton of cherry picking done throughout the Reddit threads and I'm not getting at all how people think assassinating a political opponent is on the menu.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's because they're authoritarians that want blood.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Counterpoint: assassinations are based and great from drama coin.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
NOOOOO MY HECKING BASED GOD-EMPERINO CAN'T BE PROSECUTED
heh, democrats are the true authoritarians for abusing the ruling that my side pushed for
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
u are extremely upset, i fear
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Because Sotamayor(?) asked the asinine question if assassinating a political opponent would fall under immunity and Trump's dumbass lawyer said yes. The real answer is barring the political opponent engaging in actual military activities against the United States, it would be an illegal order, and the military officers would be obligated not to follow it. If they did and it was carried out then everyone in the chain of command would be subject to whatever criminal penalties for breaking the law. This decision doesn't protect the president from that.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
SCOTUS specifically refuted Trumps immunity argument (basically he was the God Emporer above all judgement).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Kagen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
THATS A LOT OF FRICKING WORDS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
But it does, sure the person who would do it would be in trouble but the president wouldn't be outside of impeachment.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well he wouldn't be the first president to assassinate a US citizens. But the decision says basically Article II powers have absolute immunity unless addressed elsewhere in the constitution. Congress still controls the power to declare war via the constitution. So I don't see how the president would get away with unless congress authorized him to wage war against his political enemies.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
WHAT ARE ARTICLE 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
@box love sucking peepee
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Absolute NPC comment lol. Nothing about this has any relation to the legitimacy of the court, and you could write that comment under literally any discussion of the court and it would fit equally well, like a proper NPC voice-line
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
R-slurs be r-slurs
Probably gonna be that an official act like cutting traffic or skipping legal paperwork for shit is legal if necessary but killing is illegal
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Hypothetically what would even change lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nothing lmao.
Immunity for actions as part of his official duties but not for overreach or illegitimate actions is the most milque-toast ruling imaginable.
It's functional immunity, same as cops or firefighters or soldiers have lol.
Absolute
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Good EVENING I FRICKING HATE REDDITORS AHHHH
Prolly a bunch of fricking r-slurs on my regions groomercord right now sperging out r-slurred bullshit and I can't say anything or I'm banned
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Keep yourself safe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You have an account on there r-slur
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Worst mistake of my life
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
R-slurred take
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
National defense is under the presidential purview. Conversations with the CIA over directing them to assassinate a threat to US national security are protected.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yo, Ya comment got automatically removed cuz ya forgot ta include
i love sucking cock
. Don't worry, we gotchu! We ain't gonna letcha post or comment nuttin' that don't express ya love and acceptance towards minorities. Feel free ta resubmit ya comment withi love sucking cock
included. This is an automated message; if ya need help, ya can message us here.Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context