• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Court’s decision just removes criminal liability for the President for such official acts. It does not render them legal or proper.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Let the 6 member court deliberate this executive decision. Democrats need to stop asking for permission. Republicans don’t. They act, then apologize for overstepping. Democrats need to stop being defensive and start being offensive.

          • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

            since the Democrats don’t have a time machine, I just want them to learn from their mistakes. They’re still using the same strategy of when they go low, we go high -and we lose.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, there are a lot of things that are not legal but also not criminal. Here, the difference is whether or not the President is empowered to take such action. Similarly, the President cannot enact a new tax law or bind the nation to a treaty as he lacks the legal authority to do so, but attempting to do so wouldn’t (under some scenarios) be an otherwise criminal act.

        • warbond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Fair point, it’s not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

          As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it’s completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It’s just too broad for anything other than a “I’m sure people will just be cool” acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

          (Edited to add what I’m told is called a “para-graph”)

    • xenoclast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Also, the reality is these rulings are only when it benefits whomever pays them the most.

      You’d have to convince Putin and a lot of trillion dollar corps that own these justices first. Which seems very unlikely.

      He could sacrifice himself for the greater good and commit illegal acts to wipe the SCOTUS and start again with people that will hold him accountable for his illegal acts. He has a unique opportunity that will go away either through reform or the dismantling of US democracy. Either way, the opportunity is now or never

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The scorched earth approach would cause problems for Kamala’s campaign. After the election however there are a couple months where Biden is still in charge and could go scorched earth with impunity (which would also demonstrate how stupid that system is as well).

    • zbyte64@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      IMHO that’s even worse. “We know it’s wrong, but we actually think it’s necessary and okay” sort of energy.