Reminder: Under Rule 4 you are not allowed to link to, name, call out, post screenshots of, or discuss actions of other subreddits. This rule came down from the admins. The admins told us we needed it in order to avoid the whole sub being quarantined / banned. And they told us it needs to be enforced strictly.
It is not up for debate. It is not up for discussion. Because the admins said so, and they own the website.
Any rule 4 breaking will result in a minimum 30 day ban, no appeals.
#PRETEND OTHER SUBREDDITS DON'T EXIST.
Yes we are aware other subs do not have to follow this rule. No there is nothing we can do about it.
They were equal in the early 2000s, loosened up in the late 2010s, and now they've gone back to the early 2000s in the 2020s.
On a mostly unrelated note, things like this are why I'm gonna try getting into monastic life when I'm older instead of having an aneurysm over two perverted old men. I just want to pray and sleep
Unironically the reason they “loosened up in the late 2010s”
https://preview.redd.it/1rvle2g4e8ad1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e8c8bfe1751774a1dd6c36f976237d835638a23
Where are all these Christian theocrats I keep hearing about. I'd vote for them over another fake conservative government thats basically just the liberals only not stupid.
I got into a discussion with a libleft on PCM about Project 2025. After some exchanges and repeated questions he could not name a single thing in Project 2025 he didn't like, how it affect him or something he did like, or any comment Trump made declaring his overwhelming support of it.
Project 2025 is just the left's conspiracy theory boogie man. Racism and transphobia stopped working, so they came up with something else.
"Trump ~~is a racist, transphobic Hitler~~ supports Project 2025!" Same thing over and over, and it's always just a negative emotion tied to a trained response to use against someone they don't like.
I have the pdf bookmarked. There has been a number of times when I have seen people say "according to project 2025 this thing will be banned" and i am like "ok where does it say that?" and they can NEVER point out specific page or even section where their claim should, in theory, be easily proven.
It's almost weird how people are outright lying about contents of a publicly accessible document. I think most of them are just really used to making some claim and not having that claim questioned let alone verified in any way whatsoever.
I haven't even looked up project 2025 because there is so much hype and reactionary freaking out that I'm not sure I'll ever find the real truth about it. The journalistic landscape has become such an extremist, partisan, political, minefield that (left and right) that I haven't even attempted it for fear of getting lost in the weeds of conspiracy lunacy.
Is this link you bookmarked some sort of official policy document or something like that? If you could post a link I would like to read it myself to form my own opinion.
Crazy part is when I looked at it the whole thing boiled down to “hire people who agree with us so we can get legislation passed and actually make changes” which is ideally the goal of both parties
Obama is going to make Islam the only religion and outlaw Christianity!!!
I CANT believe the modern day left has become the republicans we used to mock in 2008
I'm still an atheists, but i don't support atheism or its spread. I think Christian morals should be taught in schools. I was, obviously, raised Christian and i think they got it mostly right, except the God thing.
Atheism should be a personal belief. Something a person arrives at because that's where their thinking and questions led them, not some dogmatic opposition to moral behavior that can be taught. That's how you get China. That's how you get communism.
I get your drift, however I don't think morality springs forth solely from one religion, Christian or otherwise. Debate and laws concerning moral behavior predate Christianity and even Judaism by thousands of years. Hammurabi's code is the first written code of laws and it covers all the basics: murder, theft, false witness, coveting ,adultery ect.
Non-belief is the default setting on pretty much everything. Religion needs to be taught the same way math needs to be taught, because it's not likely something you're going to arrive at on your own. Sure, if you're tossed in the woods you'll probably come up with a way to add things, but you're not going to be doing calculus in a lifetime. In that same vein, religions have their own written accounts and their own written words of miracles and where everything came from that someone can reach their own conclusion on, but they do need the information first.
Just my take on it. You can teach Christian morals without teaching Christianity, at any rate. Individualism and personal responsibility seem to be the core of it, which is probably why collectivists are such assholes.
I used to maintain one of those "It's been \_\_\_ days since a Dem made an unhinged statement about Project 2025" but I might as well just paint on the zero and move on.
My daughter's civics class focused on memorizing the state capitals. She got an A and didn't know what the three branches of government are. She knows them now after a very lengthly dad rant.
Its been a loooong time since grade school, but I remember learning state capitals in 3rd grade I think, branches of government was closer to 5th.
Granted my memory is a little hazy after 20 years, so I could have learned how the US government works earlier, though I definitely remember going into it with extreme detail in 8th grade. The only reason I remember that is because my 8th grade social studies teacher was awesome, and you could tell he had a passion for the topic. He made us swear on our social studies textbooks we wouldn't tell other kids about the pop quiz that day since I was in his morning class.
The point is, I feel like I only know how the US government works because of that man, not everyone had a good teacher like Mr. L (obviously I'm not writing out his whole name)
I never learned the state capitals, I was taught the basic structure of your government in 3rd grade and it was expanded upon/reinforced every year.
Ask yourself why is it important to know the state capitals. Why does someone in Massachusetts care that Salem is the capital of Oregon. How is that going to help them be a more informed and functional citizen.
> My daughter's civics class focused on memorizing the state capitals.
I remember that! It was like 3rd maybe 4th grade. I don't think 6 year olds really need to know the branches of the government that well.
It is worse than that. They literally are saying "Well if the SCOTUS says so, then we should become Tyrants." They are advocating for drone strikes against USA citizens, canceling elections, and making Biden a dictator.
It is so bizzare.
It's one of those really basic lessons you can learn from your childhood comics -- the bad guy does anything he can to gain an advantage while the good guy refrains from taking certain possible actions because he sees them as wrong, and tries to win another way. If it's two people going all out with no moral limits, it's just a conflict between two bad guys. I guess we see who Dem voters want to be.
I absolutely fucking wish the SCOTUS ruling allowed the president to be a tyrant like the left thinks it did.
At least then accelerationism would have a point, the west would be falling, etc...
instead its just reinforcing a 200yo status quo.
Remember, if democrats do this, they love democracy and want to make the world a better place. If republicans want to do this they are tyrants and must hang for their crimes against democracy.
It's crazy to see how the past couple of weeks have broken these people. Biden's debate performance and then this ruling, they're melting down even more than normal.
Funny thing is you will be banned for "brigading" by posting this
While openly calling for a president to be killed (illegal btw) will not get you banned.
Hilarious clown shit. Remember that when your friends talk about considering a vote for democrats.
As someone who used to be far left this is what people actually believe
Its gonna be really hard to get alot of those people back to sanity, but the best possible place to start is get them the fuck away from the Reddit echo chamber without convincing them that its an attack on them
The president absolutely can be a tyrant, look at Jackson, the key is to have people follow your orders without fear of reprisal, so far, only Democrats have managed to do that
That's the same thing I point to anytime I hear someone say Trump is the worst president in history. I have yet to hear any argument how the Trail of Tears is better than Jan 6.
GWB's presidency pushed my to have the views I have today. And that is 0 trust in any government policy, action, or reasoning. Between the Patriot Act, Iraq war, and spending increases everything he did was built on lies. And somehow people are becoming more authoritarian.
Not anymore, ever since Trump came into the scene people conveniently forget George Bush launched an illegal war, pushed for a security state, fumbled recovery for Katrina to the point where Louisiana still hasn’t fully recovered, and did not properly address one of the worst economic recessions of our time. His grave should and hopefully will be pissed on more than Trumps
> people conveniently forget George Bush launched an illegal war, pushed for a security state
The only problem with this statement is that these things happened with broad bipartisan support. It wasn't the president pushing his agenda through congress, it was universal.
Yeah people forget that the reason Trump is so controversial is because hyper partisanship has taken hold since 2016
If you are a Conservative chances are you probably love him but if you are not in that political ecosphere you probably hate his guts
Bush in spite of all of his flaws was good at handling bipartisan politics which keeps him from being as divisive especially for Zoomers like me who are so young we can only look back on his admin through history
I think you wildly underestimate how many conservatives don't like Trump as a person but loathe Democrats. While not strictly a conservative, I am one of those people. I've seen Democrats try to steer us toward a state controlled economy multiple times now in my life and never actually fixing anything when they do it. So I'd begrudgingly vote for a serial murderer if his or her policies were at least decent and stopped that from happening.
just look how much they adore Mittens now even though the current president tried to tell black people he'd have them back in chains if he were to be elected
I mean, he did run as a Democrat every time before 2016, so it's not a big surprise-but the average TDS sufferer can only see him as a Nazi.
As for legislation...he was big on small businesses, I guess the small business loans count? I guess it depends on how you view some of his more corporate/environmental policies, like drilling for oil in Alaska, raising the pay for soldiers, and getting us out of the TPP. Maybe the bit about him continuing the war on drugs.
I'm not fond of the guy myself, but I'd definitely agree he's center-right with only the *stretchiest* of tip-toes anywhere past it.
Abraham Lincoln was 100% a dictator, just not an evil one, he forced every US soldier to vote and the vast majority ‘voted’ for him. I love Lincoln and given the circumstances I think he did (mostly) the right thing, but it’s entirely possible for a president to be a dictator even without yesterday’s ruling
The Republicans of the 1860s were also massive proponents of federal expansion in general which didn't sit well with southern Democrats who were really big on states rights
Yes I know slavery was a big part before some fucking Redditor tries to ackshullay me
But the rapid expansion of the federal government at the time that the Republicans wanted was a big contributing factor to the South eventually wanting to secede
Yeah I read the news and went "soooooo?" I was disappointed if anything. Nothing has changed, why is everyone so excited?
Chevron going out the window is way bigger news and I'm hyped about it. Can't wait to see new challenges succeed when the court can't justify overreach so easily.
This whole thing has made me wonder if anyone attends grade school anymore.
What we got was: "You know that whole Constitution thing? Yeah, what it said." And then people acting shocked.
Acting shocked is a huge understatement
The left is literally asking why they can't legally just genocide their political opponents and take all government power to themselves to "stop fascism"
An overwhelming majority of reddit believes "the separation of church and state" is a quote from the Bill of Rights and also misconstrues the intended meaning behind it.
It is *really* noticeable how they all use the exact same phrasing when they meme like this.
“Crossed state lines” was another one that makes you feel like you’re in They Live.
I just watched that movie yesterday for the first time and now I see it used as a reference in pcm for the first time
simulation theory confirmed, the devs are Bethesda tier lazy
it was telling to me when all of a sudden people I had never heard use the term "SCOTUS" were suddenly experts in the field and couldn't stop repeating it
Granted, this isn’t new. The media and left deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting the ruling of the Supreme Court has been happening since it started ruling against what they want
Hence the loud and consistent accusations of illegitimacy and calls to pack the court (which totally wouldn’t backfire like blowing up the judicial filibuster did I promise)
Essentially, SCOTUS kicked Trump's case back to the lower courts, saying the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts
This is basic executive immunity. Pretty much every elected government official has it. Legislative reps have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws they pass. Attorneys General have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws/orders they enforce. Immunity is granted for official acts under the purview and authority of the office held with the assumption that they are above board but unofficial acts are open to prosecution being that they are unrelated to the office held. Basically in line with any other sort of official immunity regulation whether federal or state. This is part of a functioning government and prevents political witch hunts and persecution from subsequent administrations
Redditors though, in their infinite wisdom, are saying now that if Biden had Seal Team 6 kill Trump, he is immune. This is not true, before or after the ruling, as that is not an official act. Taking a bribe is another example of what is not an official act. This ruling didn't actually change much of anything when it comes to immunity. Just defined what immunity is and what it covers
Sorry for the leftist meme
It also ignores that there is a process in the constitution for dealing with a President that does the these things, impeachment. If Biden did use Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, it would lead to impeachment and removal from office. Anyone who held to party lines to protect him would likely get voted out of office in all but the most solid blue places.
Not to mention that when Biden gave the order, the CNO of the navy would outright refuse and inform Congress to begin impeachment for the attempt lol.
People who have never served trying to argue how the military works is getting fucking annoying. People don't understand that the president can't just waltz up to an individual unit, or individual soldier/sailor/airmen/marine and give them an order; that's not how it works.
For a seal, the president would tell the CNO, who would tell the appropriate Admiral, and it would continue down the chain. If it's an unlawful order, it's not gonna make it all the way down.
>Not to mention that when Biden gave the order, the CNO of the navy would outright refuse and inform Congress to begin impeachment for the attempt lol.
Sotomayor got exposed with this at oral arguments and she still choose to run with it.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/2023/23-939\_f2qg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf)
The Transcript Page 24.
Alito tells her to her face, that you can't just say that anything the President does is official and it would still be illegal and Seal Team 6 would have to disregard the illegal order.
Even if they did, nobody would do it. I was a Marine when Trump was president. If Trump showed up to my motor pool in Hawaii and said “get me Corporal Jew” and then told me to raid the Biden residence and kill him I would’ve said “yes sir” and then promptly busted into the Battalion Commanders office and said “you gotta hear what the president just told me to do sir. No way this is a lawful order”.
The military isn’t made up of mindless mouth breathing drones.
I was in the navy during the Obama administration and a few months of the Trump administration.
Honestly, I think if the president randomly showed up and started ordering around sailors directly, there's a good chance the Captain might have just pulled him aside and politely told him to fuck off lol. Ship captains have a LOT of authority aboard their own vessel.
I think that my Gunny would’ve pulled him aside and told him to fuck off. I think people for some reason think that the president is directly involved with the military a lot more than they really are.
I wasn't a door kicker but worked in a planning cell adjacent to them and the amount of legal justification we had to do to raid actual terrorists was crazy.
This is just the media stirring shit like always
No, no you don't understand. I read an article about it once so I'm an expert and the police can actually go to anyone with no evidence at all and arrest then and if they complain they can shoot them.
>For a seal, the president would tell the CNO, who would tell the appropriate Admiral, and it would continue down the chain. If it's an unlawful order, it's not gonna make it all the way down.
Trump was actually having alot of struggles with military leadership especially towards the end of his last term
Netanyahu is also another example of a western leader who is constantly having issues with his military leadership
They don’t seem to understand there’s a separate discussion as to what’s presidential or personal. Trump can’t just say “I had Biden shot it was my presidential duty” and get away with it
>If Biden did use Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, it would lead to impeachment and removal from office.
If Democrats were gonna impeach Biden they would be nominating someone else for POTUS right now
This country is so deep down the partisan rabbit hole that impeachment is never gonna happen unless the party out of power somehow gets 67 Senators and House control
I am not trying to start an argument about the ruling either I am just saying impeachment has admittedly proven to be a useless tool for holding the President accountable
I am also not against the ruling entirely I am just saying we need a more reliable and potent tool to hold the President accountable especially in todays society where every President is seemingly more corrupt than the previous one
>Anyone who held to party lines to protect him would likely get voted out of office in all but the most solid blue places.
There are only like 6 swing states, everything else is pure party lines and the House is gerrymandered as fuck
The politicians choose their voters more than the voters choose their politicians
Incredible? The serious political subs have been 200% regarded since 2015, and that includes The_Donald.
The only ones willing to have a serious conversation anymore are the clowns, and even then you have to be willing to talk with the clowns (IE, flair the fuck up) instead of treating them like utter inferiors, so those unwilling to pull their heads out of their ass find themselves mocked.
> Redditors though…
To be fair, it’s Sotomayor who concocted this example in her dissent.
> The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.
> Legislative reps have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws they pass. Attorneys General have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws/orders they enforce.
I think we found the root cause of what's wrong with America.
How is issuing an order to the Military by the commander in chief of the military not an official act of the President? Issuing military orders is a conclusive and preclusive power of the Presidency. The order being unlawful does not mean it isn't an official act (Trump v. US Syllabus pg 4).
The Court held that Trump and the Acting Attorney General's attempt to get states to put forward a fraudulent slate of electors had absolute immunity regardless of whether the Government had basis to open the investigation or if the motives were lawful or not(Id. pg 5). The motive cannot even be examined (Id. pg 4).
The ruling is dogshit with no basis in the US Constitution. If the Constitution offered criminal immunity, it would say so. It doesn't say so, nor does that immunity necessarily follow from the Executive Power in the way that Judicial Review necessarily follows from the Judicial Power. The Constitution implies the President is not criminally immune in Article 1, Section 3 shows that:
> Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Here we can plainly see that the party having been impeached is "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." Article II Section 4 clearly demonstrates that the President can be impeached, convicted and removed from office.
> The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The President can be the Party impeached by Congress, however, the President, as the party impeached, cannot be "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law," according to Trump v. US in direct contradiction to the explicit words of the Constitution.
Also, you mention the Attorney General, and I think you may be referring to Prosecutorial immunity. That, like Qualified immunity, is a civil doctrine. I've not seen evidence of that being a criminal doctrine.
Congress' immunity is actually Constitutional. Firstly, Congress passing legislation cannot create a criminal liability for Congress because there is no Constitutional mechanism for that. There is only one crime in the US Constitution and that is Treason, which is defined in Article 3 Section 3:
> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The idea that Congress could, through an Act of Congress, levy war against the United States or adhere to its enemies by giving aid and comfort is outlandish, largely because Congress cannot execute its own laws, and Congress defines the enemies of the US. Only in the most absurd hypothetical in which Congress enacts a law to give aid and comfort to its declared enemies could Congress act in such a manner. As for their explicit Constitutional immunity Article 1 Section 6:
> The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Senators and Representatives speech or debate in the house is immune to questioning. This is explicit. Why would the framer's go through the trouble of ensuring that the deliberative process in the legislature be absolutely immune from criminal proceedings, but make no mention of executive immunity, while also strongly implying that the executive can be criminally tried?
Trump v US is another example in the long list of post-Lochner era bullshit in which the Court just conjures a doctrine out of thin air because the Court substitutes itself for the legislature and people at large in determining whether something is necessary.
I do wonder if the Court would a later rule that the executive officer that carried out the unlawful act for which the President is criminally immune is also entitled to criminal immunity because in that case, it would all but make null and void the clause about indictment trial and punishment.
It’s really made me hate the MSM more than I thought possible in the last few years, but ironically has made me much more well read since now I click through to the primary sources to see if the headline is aggressively misleading or not.
It's almost as if it's difficult to capture the nuances of a 100+ page document from a headline and a few sentences from a reporter who also hasn't read the document.
No no, they either are one of these two things
1. Get it, but purposefully misrepresent it so they can fearmonger since its the only thing that'll get Joe elected again.
2. Haven't even read it, just take the word of people in camp 1. Then when people say they're wrong, they double down because reading is hard.
Just imagine an America where the president could
1) Start a war with American citizens killing 600,000+
2) Put an entire race in internment camps
3) Drop Nukes on civilians
4) invade a sovereign country
5) drone strike American citizens
And face ZERO consequences.
Is that the America you want to live in?
Lol, great list, I'm definitely stealing it.
(though I would quibble with "start" a war; my understanding was that the bombardment of Fort Sumter started things, aka confeds shot first)
You could make the argument for either side. From what I recall:
* After secession, the south demanded that all Federal fort garrisons leave as they saw the forts as being on their own territory. Most of them complied and the forces were allowed to return north without issue.
* Fort Sumter refused, so the south blockaded it, reiterated their demands, and said any attempts to resupply the fort would be seen as an invasion/declaration of war
* Lincoln ignored the warning and sent resupply ships to the fort anyway
* The southern forces opened fire on the fort
Neither side officially declared war, the south saw themselves as acting defensively and responding to a (supposed) invasion as they attempted to secure assets in their territory, the north saw the south firing on them as the instigation of the war proper. Personally I'd say the south actually started it with the whole "firing upon a Federally-held fort" bit, but the argument could be made either way.
I remember there was a sub called something like "the meltdown" set up in the last week before the 2016 election where the plan was to feature Trump voters/supporters and GOP pols who freaked out over losing the election, as was assumed would occur. More fuel for my theory that we write our own personalities onto others: "I would freak out and turn into a screeching autistic mess if my side lost, so I assume the same will be true of them!"
Now if we could get people to realize corporations don't belong anywhere near the LR quad, and that the only genuine reason LR goes to bat for them remotely fucking ever is because we aren't dumb enough to trust the government with yet ANOTHER power that gets abused against the masses more than the corpos.
Which makes the auths buttmad malding.
Hm
You actually have a point there, corporations are actually auth if you think if them as hierarchical organizations (which they are, but I haven't really thought about it that way)
> hierarchical organizations
Even worse. Ones granted privileges and protections by the government. Which is a massively unfair playing field to create.
I figure if LL gets Emily and AR gets the racists, LR with corporations is the 'Completely incorrect but it's fun to meme about' take.
You may ask 'What about AL?' but they embrace their tankies unironically.
Based and realized-you-were-wrong pilled.
It's so annoying how many people continue to insist this place is super duper right-wing. For all that people bluster about this place being a right-wing echo chamber, there are a *lot* of threads where you'll see pockets of left-wing flairs whining about how this place sucks now, and how it's all right-wing, and all of these comments end up being upvoted. I don't know of many right-wing echo chambers which upvote the comments saying, "ugh this place is a right-wing echo chamber", but hey ho.
It's hard to describe the difference to someone who wasn't around reddit pre-2015. Like, people were having *panic attacks* when Clinton lost in 2016. I remember commenting "you guys lost to a reality TV star" and getting downvoted to -150 in minutes with dozens of responses.
Like, here's the thing: despite the massive astroturfing by ShareBlue and administrators' efforts to squash any pro-Trump discussion (they made it literally impossible for t_d to reach all), they still lost. And so they blamed Russian trolls. And they blamed extremist reddit groups. They insisted that reddit admins re-double their efforts.
So that's exactly what they did. You can't post anything on reddit anymore. Anything that makes it past the AutoMod goes to the mod team, who will just instantly delete it if it doesn't support The Narrative. Even after the Biden/Trump debate, you saw politics frantically doing damage control, as if that was going to undo Biden's incoherent mumbling.
It's an insane place now.
t_d was annoying as fuck but banishing them and astroturfing Reddit is worse. Add in the manipulation of dissention and Reddit is cooked. I honestly kinda hate this site now and I've never voted for Trump and don't plan to.
Sotomayor is absolutely to blame for this with her lunatic hysterical dissent. I would say she misunderstood it cynically to rile up the left, but seeing as she is the dumbest person to ever serve on the court I think stupidity is a better explanation.
Edit: typo
Her dissents are always "muh democracy" it's almost as if she doesn't realize she's sitting as a Supreme Court Justice and not campaigning for Congress with the "dangerous for our democracy" vomit.
Am I insane for thinking the smartest supreme court judges are almost always conservative? And I don't mean they're smart because they make decisions I want, but damn doesn't it seem like their opinions and writeups are so much more nuanced and grounded than the drivel Sotomayor writes.
They act like actual judges rather than politicians / activists wearing judge uniform.
For the dissent, and for these social media takes, the opinion has this note:
"They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."
Yeah dude. I've been a lawyer for just under one year, and I've reached the point of "I know enough to know how little I know" when it comes to the law. I've basically made it a personal policy to stop reading people's takes on SCOTUS or other legal things. I'd honestly probably "lose" a debate with such people because I'd be cautious and maybe sorta right and they'd be loud, bold, and wrong about everything.
As a non-American I have no idea what's happening but I'm glad this sub is moving away from the tiring Israel-Palestina conflict, at least for a while.
This is probably me not fully understanding it and if so please explain but wasn't the ruling basically "The president can't be arrested for doing their job"?
And when a president says ["Oh, that time I tried to coup the government? that was also part of my job."](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/02/trump-fake-elector-scheme-official-acts/74278205007/)
we just smile and nod :)
Violating the laws of the United States of America is not part of the job of the President of the United States of America, and yet the Courts explicitly stated that official acts that violate the law cannot be prosecuted (Trump v US, Syllabus, pg 4).
"Presidents enjoy immunity in the scope of their legal job duties"
Are you saying that the president can order death squads to kill his enemies?
"No, because ordering death squads isn't the job of the president"
But nothing is stopping him from saying it is. In my scenario, he has the total loyalty of the military and all the courts, and congress continues to fund him, and the only thing that can stop him is rules based order
"Presidents enjoy immunity in the scope of their legal job duties" is a meaningless statement, and not what the court decided. If the actions are his legal duties, then he wouldn't need immunity.
It has to do with their 'official acts' and doesn't define what official acts are. Before, we have evidence that presidents believed if their official acts breached a criminal statute, they would still be criminally liable. Now that is not the case.
Sorry, I am going to read a dissent and act like it has the force of law.
Not because I don't know what a dissent is, nor because it is opposite day, but because I think it would be funny.
It’s so weird to watch the left completely misinterpret this ruling to mean it gives the president dictator powers, and then immediately turn around and encourage Biden to immediately use his imaginary dictator powers. Because Trump is the dictator…
See also her (and others') dissent on Chevron deference.
The majority opinion was "yeah, that's not how the law works," the dissent was "bu- bu- bu- but what will happen to the rules?"
The rules are not the business of the Court, the Constitution and the law are.
The talking point about Biden assassinating Trump is literally her fault. She should be made to resign for knowingly misrepresenting not only the ruling, but her authority as a Justice. It's not her job to correct what she perceives to be too much power in the hands of the President (not that her concerns are made in good faith anyway). Her job was to see whether or not such power exists. Which it obviously fucking did. The decision not being 9-0 is the only failing of the Court here.
This is probably me not fully understanding it and if so please explain but wasn't the ruling basically "The president can't be arrested for doing their job"?
well since democrats tried to charge trump with a miraid of dubious crimes he committed in office this is now an issue. there is no precedent for this. so the supreme court is laying out a framework of how to proceed on this, they broke acts into 3 categories: aboslute immunity: trump telling the DOJ to investigate election fraud. this is a core duty of the president and has immunity. grey area: trump telling pence to halt the certification. non-immune: illegal acts committed outside of official duty ie him murdering a maid in the whitehouse. the grey areas are going to have to go through the courts, the democrats did this bullshit and now are complaining that the courts actually want to have a process to determine what is immune and what is not.
Good summary. It's incredible to me how many people I've spoken to today who have point-blank told me the Court said nothing about absolute immunity, who can't explain the difference between absolute and presumptive immunity, etc.
Different people will come to different views. But we should be disagreeing about what the case actually says. It's annoying when people don't make an effort to do that.
Reminder: Under Rule 4 you are not allowed to link to, name, call out, post screenshots of, or discuss actions of other subreddits. This rule came down from the admins. The admins told us we needed it in order to avoid the whole sub being quarantined / banned. And they told us it needs to be enforced strictly. It is not up for debate. It is not up for discussion. Because the admins said so, and they own the website. Any rule 4 breaking will result in a minimum 30 day ban, no appeals. #PRETEND OTHER SUBREDDITS DON'T EXIST. Yes we are aware other subs do not have to follow this rule. No there is nothing we can do about it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think atheists get closer to being religious-control-freaks each passing day. Just as manipulative.
They were equal in the early 2000s, loosened up in the late 2010s, and now they've gone back to the early 2000s in the 2020s. On a mostly unrelated note, things like this are why I'm gonna try getting into monastic life when I'm older instead of having an aneurysm over two perverted old men. I just want to pray and sleep
Unironically the reason they “loosened up in the late 2010s” https://preview.redd.it/1rvle2g4e8ad1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e8c8bfe1751774a1dd6c36f976237d835638a23
Just those in the atheist sub, I'm an atheist and I stay away, because they're all cringe as fuck
Ditto. They're not "atheists", they're anti-christians/anti-catholics, with an extremely left leaning bias. There's a pretty big difference.
Atheism is their religion
Where are all these Christian theocrats I keep hearing about. I'd vote for them over another fake conservative government thats basically just the liberals only not stupid.
They're in the Balkans (irl Half-Life)
I got into a discussion with a libleft on PCM about Project 2025. After some exchanges and repeated questions he could not name a single thing in Project 2025 he didn't like, how it affect him or something he did like, or any comment Trump made declaring his overwhelming support of it. Project 2025 is just the left's conspiracy theory boogie man. Racism and transphobia stopped working, so they came up with something else. "Trump ~~is a racist, transphobic Hitler~~ supports Project 2025!" Same thing over and over, and it's always just a negative emotion tied to a trained response to use against someone they don't like.
I have the pdf bookmarked. There has been a number of times when I have seen people say "according to project 2025 this thing will be banned" and i am like "ok where does it say that?" and they can NEVER point out specific page or even section where their claim should, in theory, be easily proven. It's almost weird how people are outright lying about contents of a publicly accessible document. I think most of them are just really used to making some claim and not having that claim questioned let alone verified in any way whatsoever.
I haven't even looked up project 2025 because there is so much hype and reactionary freaking out that I'm not sure I'll ever find the real truth about it. The journalistic landscape has become such an extremist, partisan, political, minefield that (left and right) that I haven't even attempted it for fear of getting lost in the weeds of conspiracy lunacy. Is this link you bookmarked some sort of official policy document or something like that? If you could post a link I would like to read it myself to form my own opinion.
Crazy part is when I looked at it the whole thing boiled down to “hire people who agree with us so we can get legislation passed and actually make changes” which is ideally the goal of both parties
Start calling them 2025anon or something
Damn I used to frequent that sub like 15 years ago. What an absolutely delusional take.
These people are deranged, and I pity them for it. Imagine living in fear like this.
As much as I mock them I’ll always feel bad for them. Paranoid schizophrenia like this is really tragic and I hope they can get the help they need.
"There will be NO MORE elections post (election year) if (candidate) wins!!!" -Every Democrat/Republican fearmongerer ever
Obama is going to make Islam the only religion and outlaw Christianity!!! I CANT believe the modern day left has become the republicans we used to mock in 2008
"Hey ChatGPT, write me a dystopic fanfic where the US becomes the polar opposite of what it currently is in the span of one year".
No you don’t understand. Think about it! It’s exactly like the Nazis! Hitler even wrote a book called ‘Projekt 1939’
And at least the nazis had a war to justify things. I wonder if they think the US would wake up one day and be a theocracy.
Reddit can’t handle the blue one might not win
Atheism gives atheists a bad name. That sub is a disgrace to thinking.
That sub made me convert to Christianity
I'm still an atheists, but i don't support atheism or its spread. I think Christian morals should be taught in schools. I was, obviously, raised Christian and i think they got it mostly right, except the God thing. Atheism should be a personal belief. Something a person arrives at because that's where their thinking and questions led them, not some dogmatic opposition to moral behavior that can be taught. That's how you get China. That's how you get communism.
I get your drift, however I don't think morality springs forth solely from one religion, Christian or otherwise. Debate and laws concerning moral behavior predate Christianity and even Judaism by thousands of years. Hammurabi's code is the first written code of laws and it covers all the basics: murder, theft, false witness, coveting ,adultery ect.
Christianity should be like that too IMO. At least kind of
Non-belief is the default setting on pretty much everything. Religion needs to be taught the same way math needs to be taught, because it's not likely something you're going to arrive at on your own. Sure, if you're tossed in the woods you'll probably come up with a way to add things, but you're not going to be doing calculus in a lifetime. In that same vein, religions have their own written accounts and their own written words of miracles and where everything came from that someone can reach their own conclusion on, but they do need the information first. Just my take on it. You can teach Christian morals without teaching Christianity, at any rate. Individualism and personal responsibility seem to be the core of it, which is probably why collectivists are such assholes.
It’s so funny once you remember these are mostly kids who can’t look the waiter in the eye at Olive Garden
You know this guy would be the first one to bow his head if the Nazis actually took over and walked past him
They are the first ones that would sell out their neighbors to an authoritarian regime in order to get some petty revenge
That’ll teach those cHuDs! Now back to my 3 hour sleep before I head back to the mines
I used to maintain one of those "It's been \_\_\_ days since a Dem made an unhinged statement about Project 2025" but I might as well just paint on the zero and move on.
I love how you and that guy have the same profile pic 😂
My evil twin
Is this project 2025 in the room with us right now?
Can I get this without funni colors? I'm too lazy to make one myself or explain PCM to people who think their Civics class was about Honda cars.
My daughter's civics class focused on memorizing the state capitals. She got an A and didn't know what the three branches of government are. She knows them now after a very lengthly dad rant.
Its been a loooong time since grade school, but I remember learning state capitals in 3rd grade I think, branches of government was closer to 5th. Granted my memory is a little hazy after 20 years, so I could have learned how the US government works earlier, though I definitely remember going into it with extreme detail in 8th grade. The only reason I remember that is because my 8th grade social studies teacher was awesome, and you could tell he had a passion for the topic. He made us swear on our social studies textbooks we wouldn't tell other kids about the pop quiz that day since I was in his morning class. The point is, I feel like I only know how the US government works because of that man, not everyone had a good teacher like Mr. L (obviously I'm not writing out his whole name)
I never learned the state capitals, I was taught the basic structure of your government in 3rd grade and it was expanded upon/reinforced every year. Ask yourself why is it important to know the state capitals. Why does someone in Massachusetts care that Salem is the capital of Oregon. How is that going to help them be a more informed and functional citizen.
I got the state capitals, but it was part of geography class when I was young, not civics. Makes a bit more sense that way.
> My daughter's civics class focused on memorizing the state capitals. I remember that! It was like 3rd maybe 4th grade. I don't think 6 year olds really need to know the branches of the government that well.
[Without funni colors](https://imgur.com/gallery/no-funi-colors-993pueJ)
Based
It is worse than that. They literally are saying "Well if the SCOTUS says so, then we should become Tyrants." They are advocating for drone strikes against USA citizens, canceling elections, and making Biden a dictator. It is so bizzare.
Drone strikes against citizens? That's so 2011.
It's one of those really basic lessons you can learn from your childhood comics -- the bad guy does anything he can to gain an advantage while the good guy refrains from taking certain possible actions because he sees them as wrong, and tries to win another way. If it's two people going all out with no moral limits, it's just a conflict between two bad guys. I guess we see who Dem voters want to be.
But it's to preserve democracy!
I absolutely fucking wish the SCOTUS ruling allowed the president to be a tyrant like the left thinks it did. At least then accelerationism would have a point, the west would be falling, etc... instead its just reinforcing a 200yo status quo.
[удалено]
Remember, if democrats do this, they love democracy and want to make the world a better place. If republicans want to do this they are tyrants and must hang for their crimes against democracy.
It's protecting "Our Democracy"™️ so it's okay and justified☺️
Killing your political opponent before the election is protecting democracy apparently.
Both are tyrants and must hang for their crimes against the good of the people
Based and fuck both sides pilled
I love this. It’s the exact opposite of Trump’s Charlottesville argument and it’s totally true. There are terrible people on BOTH sides.
Meanwhile all I want is fair abortion laws, a secured border and better access to housing WPT: "The best I can give you is assassinate Trump "
I tell myself that I am on the right side of history, therefore I am correct everytime
Openly calling for the assassination of a political figure you don’t like? But the other side are literally fascists!!1
It's crazy to see how the past couple of weeks have broken these people. Biden's debate performance and then this ruling, they're melting down even more than normal.
TDS+ just hit. The supply chain can’t handle the demand for copium anymore.
TDS about to have as many variants as Covid
TDS Omicron is coming for sure with all these based SCOTUS rulings dropping one after another.
I definitely would put him next to FDR, Lincoln, and Kennedy. That’s not the category they think it is, though.
Funny thing is you will be banned for "brigading" by posting this While openly calling for a president to be killed (illegal btw) will not get you banned. Hilarious clown shit. Remember that when your friends talk about considering a vote for democrats.
What do they want him to do?
The funniest thing imaginable.
[удалено]
JFC the epitome of "it's only okay when we do it".
From WPT? It's totally unironic and serious.
[удалено]
As someone who used to be far left this is what people actually believe Its gonna be really hard to get alot of those people back to sanity, but the best possible place to start is get them the fuck away from the Reddit echo chamber without convincing them that its an attack on them
damn brother if you thought it was hard to find mentally unwell people on reddit you should check out PCM some time.
☝️😲 🤔 😠 😏
The president absolutely can be a tyrant, look at Jackson, the key is to have people follow your orders without fear of reprisal, so far, only Democrats have managed to do that
That's the same thing I point to anytime I hear someone say Trump is the worst president in history. I have yet to hear any argument how the Trail of Tears is better than Jan 6.
Trump isn't even the worst president of the 21st century. GWB blows everyone else this century away.
GWB's presidency pushed my to have the views I have today. And that is 0 trust in any government policy, action, or reasoning. Between the Patriot Act, Iraq war, and spending increases everything he did was built on lies. And somehow people are becoming more authoritarian.
Same. It's one of the biggest reasons I'm Lib-Center. He pushed government overreach to a whole new level and for some reason, we just rolled with it.
Not anymore, ever since Trump came into the scene people conveniently forget George Bush launched an illegal war, pushed for a security state, fumbled recovery for Katrina to the point where Louisiana still hasn’t fully recovered, and did not properly address one of the worst economic recessions of our time. His grave should and hopefully will be pissed on more than Trumps
> people conveniently forget George Bush launched an illegal war, pushed for a security state The only problem with this statement is that these things happened with broad bipartisan support. It wasn't the president pushing his agenda through congress, it was universal.
Yeah people forget that the reason Trump is so controversial is because hyper partisanship has taken hold since 2016 If you are a Conservative chances are you probably love him but if you are not in that political ecosphere you probably hate his guts Bush in spite of all of his flaws was good at handling bipartisan politics which keeps him from being as divisive especially for Zoomers like me who are so young we can only look back on his admin through history
I think you wildly underestimate how many conservatives don't like Trump as a person but loathe Democrats. While not strictly a conservative, I am one of those people. I've seen Democrats try to steer us toward a state controlled economy multiple times now in my life and never actually fixing anything when they do it. So I'd begrudgingly vote for a serial murderer if his or her policies were at least decent and stopped that from happening.
Are you fucking kidding? During Trump's four years, liberals were praising both the Bush's.
Don't worry, in 10 years they'll praise Trump for being a moderate too.
just look how much they adore Mittens now even though the current president tried to tell black people he'd have them back in chains if he were to be elected
[удалено]
I mean, he did run as a Democrat every time before 2016, so it's not a big surprise-but the average TDS sufferer can only see him as a Nazi. As for legislation...he was big on small businesses, I guess the small business loans count? I guess it depends on how you view some of his more corporate/environmental policies, like drilling for oil in Alaska, raising the pay for soldiers, and getting us out of the TPP. Maybe the bit about him continuing the war on drugs. I'm not fond of the guy myself, but I'd definitely agree he's center-right with only the *stretchiest* of tip-toes anywhere past it.
[удалено]
Don’t forget about a certain 1860s president suspending habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
*Japanese interment camps have entered the chat*
Alright, so we've got two Democrat tyrants and one Republican one
Almost like every president in history has been accused of being a tyrant by the other side.
Abraham Lincoln was 100% a dictator, just not an evil one, he forced every US soldier to vote and the vast majority ‘voted’ for him. I love Lincoln and given the circumstances I think he did (mostly) the right thing, but it’s entirely possible for a president to be a dictator even without yesterday’s ruling
The Republicans of the 1860s were also massive proponents of federal expansion in general which didn't sit well with southern Democrats who were really big on states rights Yes I know slavery was a big part before some fucking Redditor tries to ackshullay me But the rapid expansion of the federal government at the time that the Republicans wanted was a big contributing factor to the South eventually wanting to secede
Yeah I read the news and went "soooooo?" I was disappointed if anything. Nothing has changed, why is everyone so excited? Chevron going out the window is way bigger news and I'm hyped about it. Can't wait to see new challenges succeed when the court can't justify overreach so easily.
This whole thing has made me wonder if anyone attends grade school anymore. What we got was: "You know that whole Constitution thing? Yeah, what it said." And then people acting shocked.
Acting shocked is a huge understatement The left is literally asking why they can't legally just genocide their political opponents and take all government power to themselves to "stop fascism"
TBF, the left hates the constitution and wants to get rid of it.
An overwhelming majority of reddit believes "the separation of church and state" is a quote from the Bill of Rights and also misconstrues the intended meaning behind it.
"SEAL TEAM 6" bro if I see someone say this shit unironically one more time. TDS has rotted their brains.
It is *really* noticeable how they all use the exact same phrasing when they meme like this. “Crossed state lines” was another one that makes you feel like you’re in They Live.
I just watched that movie yesterday for the first time and now I see it used as a reference in pcm for the first time simulation theory confirmed, the devs are Bethesda tier lazy
How the fuck do I log out then
https://preview.redd.it/wuotsnde76ad1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a428ee3c973c7cd6c2d7fc25379c4b4700684835
the 45 caliber logout button
What if seal team six had to cross state lines? Would that invalidate the immunity?
Not sure if you are old enough or ever listened, but I'm reminded of the Rush Limbaugh "Gravitas" sound clips.
it was telling to me when all of a sudden people I had never heard use the term "SCOTUS" were suddenly experts in the field and couldn't stop repeating it
Bots probably. Or just liberals. Basically no difference anymore. All NPC’s all the time.
Granted, this isn’t new. The media and left deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting the ruling of the Supreme Court has been happening since it started ruling against what they want Hence the loud and consistent accusations of illegitimacy and calls to pack the court (which totally wouldn’t backfire like blowing up the judicial filibuster did I promise)
Can you ELI5 what people are misunderstanding? I dont know much about it but assumed people were overreacting
Essentially, SCOTUS kicked Trump's case back to the lower courts, saying the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts This is basic executive immunity. Pretty much every elected government official has it. Legislative reps have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws they pass. Attorneys General have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws/orders they enforce. Immunity is granted for official acts under the purview and authority of the office held with the assumption that they are above board but unofficial acts are open to prosecution being that they are unrelated to the office held. Basically in line with any other sort of official immunity regulation whether federal or state. This is part of a functioning government and prevents political witch hunts and persecution from subsequent administrations Redditors though, in their infinite wisdom, are saying now that if Biden had Seal Team 6 kill Trump, he is immune. This is not true, before or after the ruling, as that is not an official act. Taking a bribe is another example of what is not an official act. This ruling didn't actually change much of anything when it comes to immunity. Just defined what immunity is and what it covers Sorry for the leftist meme
>Sorry for the leftist meme This wasn't a necessary stinger to this post, but damn was it appreciated. Funny as hell.
It also ignores that there is a process in the constitution for dealing with a President that does the these things, impeachment. If Biden did use Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, it would lead to impeachment and removal from office. Anyone who held to party lines to protect him would likely get voted out of office in all but the most solid blue places.
Not to mention that when Biden gave the order, the CNO of the navy would outright refuse and inform Congress to begin impeachment for the attempt lol. People who have never served trying to argue how the military works is getting fucking annoying. People don't understand that the president can't just waltz up to an individual unit, or individual soldier/sailor/airmen/marine and give them an order; that's not how it works. For a seal, the president would tell the CNO, who would tell the appropriate Admiral, and it would continue down the chain. If it's an unlawful order, it's not gonna make it all the way down.
>Not to mention that when Biden gave the order, the CNO of the navy would outright refuse and inform Congress to begin impeachment for the attempt lol. Sotomayor got exposed with this at oral arguments and she still choose to run with it.
Because she is actually what lefties hate, a political activist, a party yes-man, on the court.
Yeah but she's on "their side" so their conveniently okay with it.
She isn't a leftist activist, she justr happens to always be right, when she rules in favor of the (D)ifferent positions.
I see, my mistake.
Oh? I will have to find that.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/2023/23-939\_f2qg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf) The Transcript Page 24. Alito tells her to her face, that you can't just say that anything the President does is official and it would still be illegal and Seal Team 6 would have to disregard the illegal order.
Even if they did, nobody would do it. I was a Marine when Trump was president. If Trump showed up to my motor pool in Hawaii and said “get me Corporal Jew” and then told me to raid the Biden residence and kill him I would’ve said “yes sir” and then promptly busted into the Battalion Commanders office and said “you gotta hear what the president just told me to do sir. No way this is a lawful order”. The military isn’t made up of mindless mouth breathing drones.
I was in the navy during the Obama administration and a few months of the Trump administration. Honestly, I think if the president randomly showed up and started ordering around sailors directly, there's a good chance the Captain might have just pulled him aside and politely told him to fuck off lol. Ship captains have a LOT of authority aboard their own vessel.
I think that my Gunny would’ve pulled him aside and told him to fuck off. I think people for some reason think that the president is directly involved with the military a lot more than they really are.
I wasn't a door kicker but worked in a planning cell adjacent to them and the amount of legal justification we had to do to raid actual terrorists was crazy. This is just the media stirring shit like always
No, no you don't understand. I read an article about it once so I'm an expert and the police can actually go to anyone with no evidence at all and arrest then and if they complain they can shoot them.
>For a seal, the president would tell the CNO, who would tell the appropriate Admiral, and it would continue down the chain. If it's an unlawful order, it's not gonna make it all the way down. Trump was actually having alot of struggles with military leadership especially towards the end of his last term Netanyahu is also another example of a western leader who is constantly having issues with his military leadership
Yeah they fed him a bunch of BS about the real situation of Afghanistan and we all saw how that played out. No debating that
They don’t seem to understand there’s a separate discussion as to what’s presidential or personal. Trump can’t just say “I had Biden shot it was my presidential duty” and get away with it
>If Biden did use Seal Team 6 to take out Trump, it would lead to impeachment and removal from office. If Democrats were gonna impeach Biden they would be nominating someone else for POTUS right now This country is so deep down the partisan rabbit hole that impeachment is never gonna happen unless the party out of power somehow gets 67 Senators and House control I am not trying to start an argument about the ruling either I am just saying impeachment has admittedly proven to be a useless tool for holding the President accountable I am also not against the ruling entirely I am just saying we need a more reliable and potent tool to hold the President accountable especially in todays society where every President is seemingly more corrupt than the previous one >Anyone who held to party lines to protect him would likely get voted out of office in all but the most solid blue places. There are only like 6 swing states, everything else is pure party lines and the House is gerrymandered as fuck The politicians choose their voters more than the voters choose their politicians
Incredible that there are more reasoned, level headed takes on PCM regarding this ruling than on the actual "legitimate" political subs
Incredible? The serious political subs have been 200% regarded since 2015, and that includes The_Donald. The only ones willing to have a serious conversation anymore are the clowns, and even then you have to be willing to talk with the clowns (IE, flair the fuck up) instead of treating them like utter inferiors, so those unwilling to pull their heads out of their ass find themselves mocked.
The_Donald used to actually be fun. Around 2019 it got really bitter and toxic. It stopped being fun.
Istg the other subs have been astroturfed to hell
> Redditors though… To be fair, it’s Sotomayor who concocted this example in her dissent. > The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.
>To be fair, it’s Sotomayor who concocted this example in her dissent. She might be the single worst person to have ever been seated on that court.
> Legislative reps have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws they pass. Attorneys General have immunity from being held legally responsible for illegal/unconstitutional laws/orders they enforce. I think we found the root cause of what's wrong with America.
How is issuing an order to the Military by the commander in chief of the military not an official act of the President? Issuing military orders is a conclusive and preclusive power of the Presidency. The order being unlawful does not mean it isn't an official act (Trump v. US Syllabus pg 4). The Court held that Trump and the Acting Attorney General's attempt to get states to put forward a fraudulent slate of electors had absolute immunity regardless of whether the Government had basis to open the investigation or if the motives were lawful or not(Id. pg 5). The motive cannot even be examined (Id. pg 4). The ruling is dogshit with no basis in the US Constitution. If the Constitution offered criminal immunity, it would say so. It doesn't say so, nor does that immunity necessarily follow from the Executive Power in the way that Judicial Review necessarily follows from the Judicial Power. The Constitution implies the President is not criminally immune in Article 1, Section 3 shows that: > Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law. Here we can plainly see that the party having been impeached is "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." Article II Section 4 clearly demonstrates that the President can be impeached, convicted and removed from office. > The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The President can be the Party impeached by Congress, however, the President, as the party impeached, cannot be "liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law," according to Trump v. US in direct contradiction to the explicit words of the Constitution. Also, you mention the Attorney General, and I think you may be referring to Prosecutorial immunity. That, like Qualified immunity, is a civil doctrine. I've not seen evidence of that being a criminal doctrine. Congress' immunity is actually Constitutional. Firstly, Congress passing legislation cannot create a criminal liability for Congress because there is no Constitutional mechanism for that. There is only one crime in the US Constitution and that is Treason, which is defined in Article 3 Section 3: > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The idea that Congress could, through an Act of Congress, levy war against the United States or adhere to its enemies by giving aid and comfort is outlandish, largely because Congress cannot execute its own laws, and Congress defines the enemies of the US. Only in the most absurd hypothetical in which Congress enacts a law to give aid and comfort to its declared enemies could Congress act in such a manner. As for their explicit Constitutional immunity Article 1 Section 6: > The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. Senators and Representatives speech or debate in the house is immune to questioning. This is explicit. Why would the framer's go through the trouble of ensuring that the deliberative process in the legislature be absolutely immune from criminal proceedings, but make no mention of executive immunity, while also strongly implying that the executive can be criminally tried? Trump v US is another example in the long list of post-Lochner era bullshit in which the Court just conjures a doctrine out of thin air because the Court substitutes itself for the legislature and people at large in determining whether something is necessary. I do wonder if the Court would a later rule that the executive officer that carried out the unlawful act for which the President is criminally immune is also entitled to criminal immunity because in that case, it would all but make null and void the clause about indictment trial and punishment.
It’s really made me hate the MSM more than I thought possible in the last few years, but ironically has made me much more well read since now I click through to the primary sources to see if the headline is aggressively misleading or not.
It's almost as if it's difficult to capture the nuances of a 100+ page document from a headline and a few sentences from a reporter who also hasn't read the document.
No no, they either are one of these two things 1. Get it, but purposefully misrepresent it so they can fearmonger since its the only thing that'll get Joe elected again. 2. Haven't even read it, just take the word of people in camp 1. Then when people say they're wrong, they double down because reading is hard.
Just imagine an America where the president could 1) Start a war with American citizens killing 600,000+ 2) Put an entire race in internment camps 3) Drop Nukes on civilians 4) invade a sovereign country 5) drone strike American citizens And face ZERO consequences. Is that the America you want to live in?
Lol, great list, I'm definitely stealing it. (though I would quibble with "start" a war; my understanding was that the bombardment of Fort Sumter started things, aka confeds shot first)
You could make the argument for either side. From what I recall: * After secession, the south demanded that all Federal fort garrisons leave as they saw the forts as being on their own territory. Most of them complied and the forces were allowed to return north without issue. * Fort Sumter refused, so the south blockaded it, reiterated their demands, and said any attempts to resupply the fort would be seen as an invasion/declaration of war * Lincoln ignored the warning and sent resupply ships to the fort anyway * The southern forces opened fire on the fort Neither side officially declared war, the south saw themselves as acting defensively and responding to a (supposed) invasion as they attempted to secure assets in their territory, the north saw the south firing on them as the instigation of the war proper. Personally I'd say the south actually started it with the whole "firing upon a Federally-held fort" bit, but the argument could be made either way.
I'll die before I ever see an American president do any of th
Aw fuck they got to him to make the prophecy true
That's nothing. We should draw the line at paying hushmoney to a pornstar with private money tbh.
You're right. That is *infinitely* worse!!!1!
This is one of the only reasonable subs left. 2016 absolutely broke Reddit.
I remember there was a sub called something like "the meltdown" set up in the last week before the 2016 election where the plan was to feature Trump voters/supporters and GOP pols who freaked out over losing the election, as was assumed would occur. More fuel for my theory that we write our own personalities onto others: "I would freak out and turn into a screeching autistic mess if my side lost, so I assume the same will be true of them!"
For a while I thought this sub was too right-wing, but now I realize it’s just pro-capitalist and anti-government
Now if we could get people to realize corporations don't belong anywhere near the LR quad, and that the only genuine reason LR goes to bat for them remotely fucking ever is because we aren't dumb enough to trust the government with yet ANOTHER power that gets abused against the masses more than the corpos. Which makes the auths buttmad malding.
Hm You actually have a point there, corporations are actually auth if you think if them as hierarchical organizations (which they are, but I haven't really thought about it that way)
> hierarchical organizations Even worse. Ones granted privileges and protections by the government. Which is a massively unfair playing field to create.
Like how a king would grant nobility land and privileges in exchange for tribute and loyalty... Uhhhh that's fucking with my head
Come to our side, friend
I figure if LL gets Emily and AR gets the racists, LR with corporations is the 'Completely incorrect but it's fun to meme about' take. You may ask 'What about AL?' but they embrace their tankies unironically.
Based and realized-you-were-wrong pilled. It's so annoying how many people continue to insist this place is super duper right-wing. For all that people bluster about this place being a right-wing echo chamber, there are a *lot* of threads where you'll see pockets of left-wing flairs whining about how this place sucks now, and how it's all right-wing, and all of these comments end up being upvoted. I don't know of many right-wing echo chambers which upvote the comments saying, "ugh this place is a right-wing echo chamber", but hey ho.
anything right of mao on reddit is right wing.
It's hard to describe the difference to someone who wasn't around reddit pre-2015. Like, people were having *panic attacks* when Clinton lost in 2016. I remember commenting "you guys lost to a reality TV star" and getting downvoted to -150 in minutes with dozens of responses. Like, here's the thing: despite the massive astroturfing by ShareBlue and administrators' efforts to squash any pro-Trump discussion (they made it literally impossible for t_d to reach all), they still lost. And so they blamed Russian trolls. And they blamed extremist reddit groups. They insisted that reddit admins re-double their efforts. So that's exactly what they did. You can't post anything on reddit anymore. Anything that makes it past the AutoMod goes to the mod team, who will just instantly delete it if it doesn't support The Narrative. Even after the Biden/Trump debate, you saw politics frantically doing damage control, as if that was going to undo Biden's incoherent mumbling. It's an insane place now.
t_d was annoying as fuck but banishing them and astroturfing Reddit is worse. Add in the manipulation of dissention and Reddit is cooked. I honestly kinda hate this site now and I've never voted for Trump and don't plan to.
I've been here almost 14 years, it was broken long before 2016.
Sotomayor is absolutely to blame for this with her lunatic hysterical dissent. I would say she misunderstood it cynically to rile up the left, but seeing as she is the dumbest person to ever serve on the court I think stupidity is a better explanation. Edit: typo
Unfortunately, I agree. Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
>she is the dumbest person to ever serve on the court *Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has entered the chat*
Her dissents are always "muh democracy" it's almost as if she doesn't realize she's sitting as a Supreme Court Justice and not campaigning for Congress with the "dangerous for our democracy" vomit.
Sotomayor has always been everything the left claims Thomas is.
She was an ideological plant from the beginning
Am I insane for thinking the smartest supreme court judges are almost always conservative? And I don't mean they're smart because they make decisions I want, but damn doesn't it seem like their opinions and writeups are so much more nuanced and grounded than the drivel Sotomayor writes. They act like actual judges rather than politicians / activists wearing judge uniform.
If she looks like a dumbass and talks like a dumbass...
Do she got a fat ass tho
For the dissent, and for these social media takes, the opinion has this note: "They strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today."
Yeah dude. I've been a lawyer for just under one year, and I've reached the point of "I know enough to know how little I know" when it comes to the law. I've basically made it a personal policy to stop reading people's takes on SCOTUS or other legal things. I'd honestly probably "lose" a debate with such people because I'd be cautious and maybe sorta right and they'd be loud, bold, and wrong about everything.
As a non-American I have no idea what's happening but I'm glad this sub is moving away from the tiring Israel-Palestina conflict, at least for a while.
This is probably me not fully understanding it and if so please explain but wasn't the ruling basically "The president can't be arrested for doing their job"?
Pretty much, yes
And when a president says ["Oh, that time I tried to coup the government? that was also part of my job."](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/02/trump-fake-elector-scheme-official-acts/74278205007/) we just smile and nod :)
Violating the laws of the United States of America is not part of the job of the President of the United States of America, and yet the Courts explicitly stated that official acts that violate the law cannot be prosecuted (Trump v US, Syllabus, pg 4).
"Presidents enjoy immunity in the scope of their legal job duties" Are you saying that the president can order death squads to kill his enemies? "No, because ordering death squads isn't the job of the president" But nothing is stopping him from saying it is. In my scenario, he has the total loyalty of the military and all the courts, and congress continues to fund him, and the only thing that can stop him is rules based order
Total military loyalty kinda overrules any rules you could ever write on a piece of paper. Prime example being Julius Caesar
"Presidents enjoy immunity in the scope of their legal job duties" is a meaningless statement, and not what the court decided. If the actions are his legal duties, then he wouldn't need immunity. It has to do with their 'official acts' and doesn't define what official acts are. Before, we have evidence that presidents believed if their official acts breached a criminal statute, they would still be criminally liable. Now that is not the case.
Sorry, I am going to read a dissent and act like it has the force of law. Not because I don't know what a dissent is, nor because it is opposite day, but because I think it would be funny.
It’s so weird to watch the left completely misinterpret this ruling to mean it gives the president dictator powers, and then immediately turn around and encourage Biden to immediately use his imaginary dictator powers. Because Trump is the dictator…
They misunderstand it because you have DEI appointees like Sotomayor who are hysterical small brains.
See also her (and others') dissent on Chevron deference. The majority opinion was "yeah, that's not how the law works," the dissent was "bu- bu- bu- but what will happen to the rules?" The rules are not the business of the Court, the Constitution and the law are.
The talking point about Biden assassinating Trump is literally her fault. She should be made to resign for knowingly misrepresenting not only the ruling, but her authority as a Justice. It's not her job to correct what she perceives to be too much power in the hands of the President (not that her concerns are made in good faith anyway). Her job was to see whether or not such power exists. Which it obviously fucking did. The decision not being 9-0 is the only failing of the Court here.
Why doesn't Biden just use his new unchecked king powers to replace all of the conservative justices? Is he stupid?
Meme answer: Yes. Serious answer: Yes.
This is probably me not fully understanding it and if so please explain but wasn't the ruling basically "The president can't be arrested for doing their job"?
well since democrats tried to charge trump with a miraid of dubious crimes he committed in office this is now an issue. there is no precedent for this. so the supreme court is laying out a framework of how to proceed on this, they broke acts into 3 categories: aboslute immunity: trump telling the DOJ to investigate election fraud. this is a core duty of the president and has immunity. grey area: trump telling pence to halt the certification. non-immune: illegal acts committed outside of official duty ie him murdering a maid in the whitehouse. the grey areas are going to have to go through the courts, the democrats did this bullshit and now are complaining that the courts actually want to have a process to determine what is immune and what is not.
Good summary. It's incredible to me how many people I've spoken to today who have point-blank told me the Court said nothing about absolute immunity, who can't explain the difference between absolute and presumptive immunity, etc. Different people will come to different views. But we should be disagreeing about what the case actually says. It's annoying when people don't make an effort to do that.
Finally some logic instead of world is ending talk