politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
There are so many misinformed people on this ruling. It doesn’t give the President more executive authority, like a king. It lets him commit crime without personal responsibility if it’s an official act.
Yes, it’s insane and deplorable, but it doesn’t mean Biden can do anything he wants.
If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.
"I have ordered the military to detain Donald Trump in a Federal max security prison and destroy all ballots marked with his name on election day. This is not a change in the laws of our great nation, this is just an act that I am ordering to be performed in my official capacity as POTUS. God bless America."
And while he won't face any charges himself the military will refuse to execute what is an obviously unlawful order.
It's all about asking the right people.
If making up imaginary scenarios in your mind that have no chance of happening makes you feel better go for it my man.
lmao, I mean, I don't think it has any real chance of happening. But what stops it is Biden being Biden. If it were, say, a fascist in the Oval Office, the only question would be "Who do I ask to do this dirty work?"
Well, presidents can also leverage other actors to help them out. Quid pro quo, you might say.
Unfortunately that really only tends to work in the favor of bad actors. There is no legitimate reason to have immunity for "good."
It really doesn't change much. Instead of just ignoring what presidents do that might be criminal, it's explicitly immune.
Also this ruling doesn't grant further immunity to others. The president can order seal team 6 to kill someone, but they'd still face charges if it wasn't plausibly a legitimate target.
Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.
It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.
Except the President has pardon power.
Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.
That’s a good and terrifying point.
Biden could also grant immunity to others in carrying out his potential illegal actions, like trump did. If you want to fanfiction this scenario
How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.
There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.
I don't understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn't willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you'd basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn't in office.
Oh, I agree that it should be considered a crime. I’m just suggesting a way Cannon may leverage this in Trumps favor.
Since there’s no requirement that the President needs to be actively in office for immunity, if she ruled that his ownership of the documents was an “official act,” then any crime he may have committed involving the documents could be considered in service of said act.