|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 15:36:33 GMT
Surely no-one can be surprised at the ruling. In the context of VS Trump, it's obviously terrible optics. In the context of how the law operates, this is always how it's been. It's been presumed, even before things like Nixon and his "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal" that official Presidential acts have always granted immunity. Lower courts have ruled that way dozens of times, this is just the first time it made it to the Supreme Court after a lower court decided otherwise. What this was, in terms of real world impact, was a delaying tactic so the trial got pushed out beyond November.
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 1, 2024 15:39:21 GMT
And a whole new round of litigation to determine what is an official act. Which I guess could be as part of another trial? Not sure really.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 15:44:44 GMT
Yeah, although that one has always been fuzzy (again, look at Nixon). Also kind of weird the number of people now thinking things could happen like whatever Bill posted. There's a substantial difference between political actions being overturned/overruled before they can be actioned (happens regularly) and something being considered illegal/criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Jul 1, 2024 16:02:04 GMT
I imagine the DoJ are frantically revising some of their arguments and weighing up if they can just press ahead anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Whizzo on Jul 1, 2024 16:02:21 GMT
Biden should get some Deltas to take out Trump, he'll be okay, may get a slapped wrist for deploying non-National Guard on US soil though.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 1, 2024 16:12:44 GMT
Alright then, let's see Biden imprison (or kill!) and replace the six "Justices" that voted for it. As an official act.
And maybe throw a few drone strikes on Mar-a-Lago while Trump is there. Y'know, as an official act. "We have deemed that Mr. Trump's actions and words constitute a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Therefore, in my official capacity as POTUS and considering the Supreme Court's immunity ruling, I must act in the best interest of our country and our people."
Oh, they're going to impeach him? Who? The senators he can just as easily send to jail along with the Justices? As an official act?
What even defines an official act? Because at this point it's looking like an official act is whatever the SCOTUS decides it is... The SCOTUS that Trump packed full of his yes-people. Checks? Balances? What are those, can you eat them?
|
|
|
Post by Bill the kidding on Jul 1, 2024 16:13:05 GMT
Yeah, although that one has always been fuzzy (again, look at Nixon). Also kind of weird the number of people now thinking things could happen like whatever Bill posted. There's a substantial difference between political actions being overturned/overruled before they can be actioned (happens regularly) and something being considered illegal/criminal. Well, I wasn't *entirely* serious.
But doesn't it open up a weird situation where more proportionate / measured actions can be overruled, but extreme actions that cannot be undone have no comeback.
Like, if Biden tried to remove a bunch of supreme court judges legally, it'd probably be blocked / overruled / reversed. But if he had them assassinated then there's no comeback.
It favours someone like Trump who's willing to just totally ignore all the established norms and damn the consequences, because there can be no consequences.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 1, 2024 16:13:08 GMT
But you don't have to listen to me, Sotomayor’s dissent sums it up perfectly:
I guarantee you, they only voted this way because they believe a Democratic president will actually be enough of a decent human being not to use it, but Trump won't have a single problem (which is what they want).
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 16:22:46 GMT
It favours someone like Trump who's willing to just totally ignore all the established norms and damn the consequences, because there can be no consequences.
Fair. The main challenge to the vagueness of Constitutional Definitions is that it's always assumed that the people empowered by it are decent people. But again this one is still far more about optics than it is about reality and what actually happens in courts and on official paper. When Nixon said it, no-one cared about the political and legal aspects, the biggest worry was that it would be damaging to his reputation. The only real difference here is Nixon's cases never made it to the courts in the same capacity as today. And somehow, democracy survived.
|
|
|
Post by Jambowayoh on Jul 1, 2024 16:27:24 GMT
I guess in the immortal words of a forumite aeons ago...
We'll see...
|
|
|
Post by technoish on Jul 1, 2024 16:38:28 GMT
Was this in the Sotomayor dissent??
President is now a king above the law.” “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 1, 2024 16:43:12 GMT
Was this in the Sotomayor dissent?? President is now a king above the law.” “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” Some (most?) sources have it in, others don't. I don't think those that do just pulled it out of their collective butts...
|
|
Onny
Junior Member
Posts: 1,136
|
Post by Onny on Jul 1, 2024 17:58:29 GMT
It favours someone like Trump who's willing to just totally ignore all the established norms and damn the consequences, because there can be no consequences.
Fair. The main challenge to the vagueness of Constitutional Definitions is that it's always assumed that the people empowered by it are decent people. But again this one is still far more about optics than it is about reality and what actually happens in courts and on official paper. When Nixon said it, no-one cared about the political and legal aspects, the biggest worry was that it would be damaging to his reputation. The only real difference here is Nixon's cases never made it to the courts in the same capacity as today. And somehow, democracy survived. You’re falsely equivocating here, Grem. Nixon did not attempt to forcefully retain the presidency, nor did he look to usurp a free election. Democracy survived Nixon, but democracy was not under attack. It is here. This is not hyperbolic; it is. Trump attempted to circumvent the US democratic system. He should not be allowed to do this - nobody should. And yet here we are.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 18:06:48 GMT
They made zero ruling on Trump's guilt, and the trial can still proceed and he can still be found guilty. All they did was rule that a precedent that already exists still exists and delay out the trial. And Watergate was 100% an attack on free elections and democracy and directly about the power a President has in regards to morally dubious and self-serving actions.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 18:21:01 GMT
Just to clarify in case anyone seems to think I'm defending Trump or am happy about this decision or something, my point overall is that the trend nowadays, from literally everyone on both sides of the aisle, is to hyper-exaggerate one specific issue and either misrepresent it in some way for political gain or misunderstand/not even be aware of the context and broader nuances, to the extent where everything bad that happens is considered The End Of Days, even if it does fundamentally nothing. It's kind of ludicrous and frustrating. As above, absolutely no-one should be surprised by this ruling, so all this hyperbole about "now let's assassinate everyone with drone strikes freely" is stupid and meaningless.
Though interestingly enough, the last time this topic was in serious consideration was when there was talk of Obama getting indicted for drone strikes that killed American citizens.
|
|
|
Post by skalpadda on Jul 1, 2024 22:00:43 GMT
They made zero ruling on Trump's guilt, and the trial can still proceed and he can still be found guilty. All they did was rule that a precedent that already exists still exists and delay out the trial. And Watergate was 100% an attack on free elections and democracy and directly about the power a President has in regards to morally dubious and self-serving actions. It was, and this particular legal question may have been roughly the same, but he would have been impeached and he left. Your "checks and balances" are practically gone now (or shown to be irrelevant) and people are absolutely right to be freaking out about it.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 1, 2024 22:06:29 GMT
People are right to be concerned, but the problem isn't really the courts. The problem is that the Republican party and its electorate have gone insane.
|
|
|
Post by peekconfusion on Jul 1, 2024 22:17:21 GMT
People are right to be concerned, but the problem isn't really the courts. The problem is that the Republican party and its electorate have gone insane. Well, the courts are definitely a problem. It's almost like politically slanted judiciary (right up to the highest court in the land) is a bad idea.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 22:24:14 GMT
It’s fine to be concerned, sure, but the people who seem to be most loudly concerned about it (across the internet and media as a whole) also don’t really understand it. That’s what gets me irked up about it, really, in that there’s this whole culture that US Politics* is important enough to make gut reactions and loud angry posts about, but not important enough to understand how it works.
*replace with practically any topic
|
|
|
Post by skalpadda on Jul 1, 2024 22:24:36 GMT
Well it's also the courts. They weren't a critical factor in Watergate because the other checks on presidential power (Congress and the media in that case) still worked. Over the past 8 years it's been made pretty clear that's no longer the case. Even if you think this decision was obvious or inevitable it has removed the last possible avenue for reigning in a president and a party that's given up on democracy.
Edit: Fair enough that a lot of the reactions and hot takes aren't exactly reasonable or accurate, but the general sentiment isn't invalid.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 22:40:46 GMT
Yeah, that’s fair. It’s still a bit of a wait and see moment rather than a watershed in itself though. Could lead to some really shitty stuff. Mostly still depends on November. Just be to safe though I still have my blue hardee hat on back order from when someone on EG told me Civil War was imminent back in 2018 or so.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 1, 2024 22:46:42 GMT
Yeah but this time it's true!
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 1, 2024 22:48:13 GMT
Fury Road will look like a documentary in 4 years.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 22:50:35 GMT
WITNESS ME
|
|
|
Post by skalpadda on Jul 1, 2024 22:58:00 GMT
The boy who cried wolf was an eejit, but the wolf actually came at the end. The people freaking out and proclaiming doom every time Trump farts are obviously not helping, but there's still a wolf and nobody seems to have a good plan for how to deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by JuniorFE on Jul 1, 2024 23:15:53 GMT
Speaking of the wolf, he wasted no time before howling: www.dailydot.com/debug/donald-trump-military-tribunals-supreme-court-ruling/"When they go low we go high" is pretty close to meaning "we get hanged"... Stooping to the idiot's level may mean he beats you with experience, but if no one gives a fuck about decorum and optics except you... maybe it's time to re-evaluate how important they are vs taking action before shit can truly and irreversibly hit the fan, I dunno
|
|
lukasz
New Member
Meat popsicle
Posts: 626
|
Post by lukasz on Jul 1, 2024 23:35:47 GMT
Just to clarify in case anyone seems to think I'm defending Trump or am happy about this decision or something, my point overall is that the trend nowadays, from literally everyone on both sides of the aisle, is to hyper-exaggerate one specific issue and either misrepresent it in some way for political gain or misunderstand/not even be aware of the context and broader nuances, to the extent where everything bad that happens is considered The End Of Days, even if it does fundamentally nothing. . Is it though? You are hoping it's nothing. Hope does not make reality. We have SC saying that president can break laws as long as it's made official. We have him say he will go after his enemies We had him say he will be dictator for one day We know about his team, and what they are planning to do. We know what they did to gop party when hsi family member took over It's fine Until it isn't. And it's not one thing which caused what happened in other countries. But many many little things. Which we are seeing now.
|
|
MolarAm🔵
Full Member
Bad at games
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by MolarAm🔵 on Jul 1, 2024 23:41:17 GMT
That's got a few too many syllables to be a haiku, time for another draft.
|
|
|
Post by 😎 on Jul 1, 2024 23:46:06 GMT
High regulated Internet Forum Reddit Blindly repost all
|
|
lukasz
New Member
Meat popsicle
Posts: 626
|
Post by lukasz on Jul 2, 2024 0:57:29 GMT
Pretending it's fine Will make things even more worse Saw it in my home
|
|