1173
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
1173 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19246 readers
3308 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:
"We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."
The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
Specifically, immunity from civil damages. The president couldn't be sued by randos claiming he cost them a job or whatever.
This is a new class of fascism. Keep on trollin'.
The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.
That's true other than it's absolutely not.
No? Can the president be charged with murder for telling the military to drone strike someone? No they cannot, because they are immune. They have to have some immunity in order to execute their duties.
This most recent ruling wildly expanded the immunity, added presumed immunity for adjacent actions, and phrased everything in such a way that actually prosecuting the president for literally anything will take years.
Say the president does something you think is illegal and should be prosecuted. Stop. Before you can take him to court over that, you need to determine if what he did was "official" or "unofficial." SCOTUS didn't give deterministic guidelines to differentiate, so you need to have a separate court case just for that. Alright so let's have the court case that determines whether what the president did was official or unofficial. Let's introduce some evidence—
Stop. Evidence from official acts cannot be introduced in a case to prove something was unofficial. So you actually need to have a separate court case to determine if that evidence is official or unofficial. Once you have your results, one party won't like it and will appeal it up and up to the supreme court. Repeat for potentially every single piece of evidence.
Okay now that we know what evidence we can and can't introduce, we can finally determine if what the president did was official or unofficial. Once we have a result, one party won't like it and it will be appealed all the way up to the supreme court again. Only when SCOTUS rules the action was unofficial (IF they rule it was unofficial) can you then BEGIN the process of actually taking the president to court over that action.
This will take years, not to mention the supreme court is appointed by the president and it recently ruled that taking bribes after you do something instead of before is perfectly legal actually. This is all by design. The point is to keep this all tied up in court for years, which effectively gives the president full immunity for everything. And he can also pressure the courts or judges to rule his way via any number of threats (if you think that's an unofficial act, feel free to take him to court over it).
This is pretty clearly designed to functionally protect the president from all culpability (which the dissenting SCOTUS opinions agree on, ergo their dissent).
Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It's been like that for 200 years. That's why you can't charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.
Folks, it's quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.
Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.
You can't charge them for war crimes bc war crime isn't a US law. This didn't exist before and the official unofficial distinction was explicitly created in the ruling. The above post outlines exactly the process now established to block any case, suggesting that because a more ridiculously comically corrupt version of a ruling exist that this isn't it nonsense and clearly demonstrative of your goal to spin propaganda.
Your post is a lie, self contradictory and explicit propaganda. Your account should be blocked and banned.
Well, didn't take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?
The thing is, this country has existed for nearly 250 years without this ruling and the president having any sort of immunity. The idea that we suddenly need this is ridiculous. So what changed? Well, Trump of course. And yes, this is all about Trump. This ruling didn't come out of nowhere. It came from Trump making claims about immunity, the lower courts dismissing the claims as nonsense, until the supreme court took it up and here we are.
Let's follow that logic.
You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.
Same scenario, but now it's the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?
It's simple really. It's not murder when someone in the military kills an enemy combatant. Murder is illegally taking another's life, and members of the military can legally kill enemy combatants. That's laid out in the Geneva Conventions and all of that.
The President is the commander in chief, so he doesn't need immunity to order some terrorists taken out. That's the way it's worked for nearly 250 years. Joe Citizen is not a member of the military and is not the president, so generally they can expect to get in trouble for that sort of thing.
The President can order some terrorists killed the same way a fighter pilot can shoot down an enemy plane, a soldier can throw a grenade into an enemy foxhole, or navy captain can order the shelling of an enemy position.
Also note that immunity here doesn't mean something is legal for that person. The act is still just as illegal as it has always been. It just means that the person who has immunity can't be prosecuted for it. And in the case of absolute immunity, can't even be charged for it, unlike things like qualified immunity where someone can still be charged and then can argue immunity as their defense the courts get to decide if it actually applies.
As such, a member of the military doesn't have or need immunity, because what they are doing isn't illegal. That also applies to the president in that sort of situation.
United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018
Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”
That's a different thing entirely. Members of the US military don't have combatant immunity when it comes to the US legal system, because what they are doing is legal in terms of the law. Combatant immunity would apply if they are captured as a POW by another nation following the Geneva conventions, which basically says that nation can't charge them for acts of warfare, murder, etc. for participating in the war as a combatant. So long as they weren't committing war crimes or something along those lines. So once again the President, as the commander in chief, doesn't need immunity to order an airstrike or whatever, because it's already legal for him/her to do so.
it's okay, reading is hard
I copy and pasted from the 1981 ruling. Anyway, hope you have a good one!
He's pointing out what you posted says damages liability, which means something completely different. Basically means I couldn't have sued Regan for fucking over 90% of the American populous financially. It doesn't mean he has immunity to everything that is an official act. Big difference.
Indeed it does. The president has always had immunity. This is civil immunity. There is also criminal immunity because you can't prosecute the president for ordering the deaths of thousands of people. Unlike say, you know if I was responsible for thousands of deaths. Or even one death. The president must have some immunity to carry out their duty as commander and chief. We have laws against murder. Ever find it funny you can't go after the president for murder? No, you never once considered it.
Can you show me anywhere in the constitution that says you can't, because it is a responsibility of the people according to the constitution for the people to stop them from doing such shit.
Keep being the sheep you want to be. Get down on your knees and bow next.
Nope, the real lie was SCOTUS was becoming liberal instead of just making a few liberal rulings here and there. This was used as a battle cry to put in more conservatives, remember the "activists" judges they were wringing their hands about. So now we don't even get a few liberal rulings sprinkled here and there.
Full stop, SCOTUS has always been conservative. History has already proven this
I wonder why you'd prefer a partisan court?
I did not say I support it, just that it has always been conservative. I am pretty sure I was agreeing with you just elaborating on a point.
Well when we have a Right Wing party (Democrats) and a Fascism Party (Republicans) one of those is preferable to the other
Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?
That Liberal Media that keeps treating Trump like a real candidate despite the 34 felonies?
You disagree with 74 million people then?
I do, and I'm tired of pretending I don't.