Unable to load image
/h/pol
LiterallyShaking brit/bong TER, drop the F  3mo ago (scored.co) Edited 3mo ago 2,442 thread views #280375

BREAKING: In Trump v. United States, US Supreme Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for some things but not for others :marseyshrug:

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:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135

Various seethe etc:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465292248852.webp

https://x.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1807784154118992243

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465296108704.webp

https://x.com/DashDobrofsky/status/1807792596561141919

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465298459048.webp

https://x.com/theirishokie/status/1807785910936691184

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465315859425.webp

https://x.com/BradMossEsq/status/1807785995644903923

109
New Old Top Bottom Controversial Random
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

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.

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198688851032836.webp

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198688854574409.webp

@box love sucking peepee

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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 :#marseynothingburger:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

they dont even care about appearing legitimate anymore

:#marseynpcmad: :#marseynpcmad: :#marseynpcmad:

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.

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.

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.

Kagen.

How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup?

I think that, as the Chief Justice pointed out earlier, where there's a whole series of, you know, sort of guidelines against that, so to speak, like the UCMJ prohibits the military from following a plainfully unlawful act, if one adopted Justice Alito's test, that would fall outside. Now, if one adopts, for example, the Fitzgerald test that we advance, that might well be an official act and he would have to be, as I'll say in response to all these kinds of hypotheticals, has to be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

THATS A LOT OF FRICKING WORDS

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This decision doesn't protect the president from that.

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. :marseyshrug: 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.

and I'm not getting at all how people think assassinating a political opponent is on the menu.

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.

NOOOOO MY HECKING BASED GOD-EMPERINO CAN'T BE PROSECUTED

:chudtantrum:

heh, democrats are the true authoritarians for abusing the ruling that my side pushed for

:chudrage:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

u are extremely upset, i fear

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

https://media.giphy.com/media/3oz8xLd9DJq2l2VFtu/giphy.webp

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

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.

my regions groomercord

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.

They said his conversations with the AG over voter fraud was protected because investigating crimes is under the presidential purview

R-slurred take

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

his conversations with the AG over voter fraud was protected because investigating crimes is under the presidential purview

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.

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 with i 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.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.