| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago |
| >but some people need to spend a significant amount of their lives in prison. Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen. The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office and has unlimited power to pardon anyone else of any federal crimes. And if the Democrats even attempt to do anything of the sort, people will just consider it a partisan witchhunt. It will be litigated all the way to a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues. |
|
| ▲ | pjc50 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| People will correctly consider it a partisan witchhunt, but that is ultimately the only way back to "normal". Pack the court and start the prosecutions. Look at Hungary and Poland. (The UK has the opportunity to do this before the fash get into power, but we can watch it being fumbled in real time) |
|
| ▲ | pasquinelli 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Short of rewriting the constitution, that just isn't going to happen then a new constitution it is! |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Realistically this is what the Constitutional convention mechanism is for, but for the last several decades the Democrats have viewed any suggestion of employing it as a Republican plot and have opted instead for not having a plan and trying to prop up a creaky status quo. | |
| ▲ | bugbull 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | mistrial9 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| no this is false and a superficial search confirms it. No need to make extensive citations because this level of talk does not warrant it. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent [-] | | provide one citation, then. | | |
| ▲ | Jtsummers 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf > The president is immune to prosecution for any crime committed in office That's a misreading of the SC decision. If he walks down the street and murders someone, unless he can make a case that it was an official act, then he wouldn't have immunity. He'd need to demonstrate that he has the Constitutional authority to murder people on the street, and he doesn't, so it wouldn't be an official act and he wouldn't have any immunity. | | |
| ▲ | convolvatron 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | ok, so we managed to get a decision that the president wan't immune from having to pay out in a civil suit related to the molestation of a woman from before he even became a politician. but part of the problem here is the blurring of the personal and the official. should the president be liable for overtly violating the constitution 'while performing official acts'. Is interfering in the state's right to hold their own elections an official act? is instructing the military to order someone in cold blood an official act? does pursuing a series of novel legal interpretations imply that he was violating the law or not? is accepting money in exchange for a presidential pardon an official act? whether or not you believe this is a pass from the Supreme Court, it opens up a whole new unexplored space of lack of culpability. | | | |
| ▲ | LadyCailin 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How about not on the street, but in a boat in international waters? Or, how about on the street, but they were believed to be carrying drugs? | |
| ▲ | muddi900 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But the state can manufacture any excuse to formulate an "official act" | | |
| ▲ | cco 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The point is that the state needs to flip enough that Trump would not be in a position to control what the state (the court actually) views as an official act. If Trump continues to have enough influence in the SCOTUS after he's done being president, then yes, you could imagine they contort any action into an official act. But that'd be a failure of the next government to first establish a less biased SCOTUS (either by packing it or removing existing justices). | | |
| ▲ | muddi900 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | The next governement can't by itself make anything unofficial, if the SC would just deem it unconstitutional. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mistrial9 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Aye, scallywag, yer SCOTUS rulings reading ain’t fit for kindergarten; read the chart again: official acts may be immune, but private crimes still face prosecution.” | | |
| ▲ | RRWagner 2 days ago | parent [-] | | For a king, and one that presumes themselves king, every act is official. The theory is that Congress can always impeach but we have seen and still see that they have no interest in doing so for any reason, no matter how egregious. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | badc0ffee 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > a SCOTUS that's stacked with Trumpist ideologues. It's majority conservative, but that's not the same thing as what you're claiming here. It has 3 members appointed by Trump, but even that doesn't make them Trumpist ideologues. |
| |
| ▲ | hiddencost 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I really can't find any other possible interpretation of their wall to wall decisions on anything election related. They are a knowing and enthusiastic participant in the coup. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Thomas is a born and bred loser, but otherwise they're afraid of being assassinated. Judges are under massive, massive amounts of threat whenever they think to hold Trump to literally any scrutiny whatsoever. Not a conspiracy theory, this is an open discussion topic among federal judges within their own conferences. | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah yes, rule of law is when judges get their decisions overruled by invisible terrorists. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | krapp 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't believe for a second that Trump, being the narcissist that he is, would appoint anyone but ideologues. | | |
| ▲ | edmundsauto 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Probably more loyalists than ideologues. It’s the Project 2025 influence that has the ideologues. And the Thiel/Vance sector has the traditional influence-focused corruption, while the Trump family is more low-trust-society personal enrichment grift. Quite a perfect storm. |
|
|
