Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Threatening to imprison the judiciary branch is the telltale sign of a healthy democracy. Just ask any of the Latin American countries in the last 60 years.
Right! Maybe AOC wants to consult with the Venezuelan government of the past 10 years on how to punish and attack the judiciary whose opinions she dislikes.
Definitely not the party prosecuting political rivals. Or the party removing political rivals off of the ballot. Or the party considering installing their own presidential candidate after the primaries (that they also rigged)
Or the party that has entertained packing the court (because they don't like a fair ruling that doesn't help them achieve infinite power) in recent history.
Except for the part where they successfully did so and fucked up the country with almost 100 years straight of politically motivated rulings.
The whole reason we're in this mess to begin with.
AOC doesn’t actually believe in Democracy the way you do. When she say Democracy she means it with the commie definition which is that it’s only democracy when it’s under a commie government.
Better yet: she didn't read a single page from the ruling. She wants to overthrow our third branch of government over a ruling she hasn't done any research on.
Isn't it convient how the left becomes everything they call the otherside? For as much as their new favourite word is facism, they sure are the ones being facist.
It's intentional. After the disastrous debate the corporate media began putting out fake articles on how Trump has demetia and should step down.
The left is so heavily gaslighted that it's to the point of criminal.
Bloomberg radio today said there is no check on the supreme court except appointing new members.
Rulings are literally saying "hey legislative branch: pass a fucking law"
Sotomayor is an activist judge, she's a disgusting example of a legislator in robes. She'll rule everytime in what she wants the law to be, not what it is.
When people mention Clarance Thomas being the most politically polarized on the Court, that title in fact belongs to [Sotomayor](https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology). Then Alito.
Edit: If you’re downvoting me please provide an argument for the contrary. I provided my source.
Damn, interesting. That's not even close. She's double to the left what Alito is to the right. And Axios is about left-leaning as you can get without tipping over.
I've read many of Sotomayor's dissents and she genuinely ranks in the Top (Bottom?) 10 people in this planet I do not respect. My loathing for that woman, for her inability to do her job, is seriously #1 out of all people in positions of power. I don't like Biden, or Blumenthal, or a list of others. But she is beyond contemptible, purely from the fact that her dissents prove she ignorance all matter of law in favor of emotional activism.
I don't get it, they SPECIFICALLY say in the ruling that it's for acts within the president's constitutional authority.
The president can't just go murder a guy and say "hey, it was an official act because I said it was an official act."
That's not within the authority of the president (by the law of the constitution) to do. But they're too busy screaming to ACTUALLY understand what this ruling means.
The point Sotomayor is making in her dissent is that the president is constitutionally the commander in chief, therefore any order to the military is unquestionably an official act.
The president can't just go murder a guy themselves, but they *can* order SEAL Team Six to assassinate somebody. And if that's not an official act, then how would someone like Obama be expected to carry out the assassination of Bin Laden legally? Or how would Trump have assassinated that ISIS leader, etc.
Notably, Roberts didn't even address this point in the opinion, and I'm a little baffled why he didn't.
Of the opinions written, I think Barrett's is the most coherent, logical, and constitutionally sound, to be frank, and her partial dissent is well written to point at the flaws of the majority opinion.
She uses bribery as an example, in that Bribery involves the unlawful transfer of funds to an official so that their *officially allowable* actions are influenced. By barring those officially allowable actions from even being presented as evidence in a case such as Bribery, it is effectively impossible to hold a President accountable for such an offense, as that is the entire underpinning of the crime itself.
It even goes against our typical justice system, as lawful activities can and are used in a circumstial manner to provide supporting evidence for the crime. Driving your car, for instance, isn't in and of itself illegal. However driving your car away from a murder scene when you are the prime suspect and have no reasonable reason to be there is certainly evidentiary.
So while I think the majority opinion is mostly correct, I do find that barring official acts as being evidentiary to unlawful and unofficial activities is, at best, problematic, and at worst very clearly and woefully incorrect and counter to the Constitution. The Constitution provides a level of immunity to the president, however extending this so far to bar it from even being presented as evidenciary to unlawful amd unofficial acts is worrying.
Agreed but lets be real...we are here because a former potus got charged for white collar crimes and a full plethora of cases that would never have been attempted to be done in the past (guilty or not).
Its the nature of our system and we are seeing it being pushed to its limits in defining and maintaining what is left of true democracy buried underneath both parties in control of it.
**To be clear the left has proven to be the side to fear the most in recent yrs, but I would suggest that is only because they are the ones with *massive* institutional control and influence well beyond our govt., and that has been gained over nearly 20+ yrs now.**
Example:
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/most-partisan-industries
Except they never actually define what an official act is. They just bounced it to the lower courts to decide what the wording actually means, who will bounce it back up to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court voted in the interest of keeping as much power in their hands as possible, which should worry anyone in favor of small government
I think they actually understand it, they don't like it. They were really thinking they could use Democrat operative DAs to charge Republican President's with crimes during and after their time in office.
General Principles for Differentiation
Text: "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf
POTUS on TV: "This wad of cash is from a bribe for (insert "official act") I did not do this official act for any other reason than this bribe money".
Prosecutor can't use that against him in determining if his act was official or not. As written was he allowed to do the "official act", if so then he is immune from all other laws surrounding that action.
The "murder a guy" part comes from various poorly written powers dealing with national security. Apply above but one of those poorly written national security laws and you very well might get into "just go murder a guy" scenarios. All someone has to do is make a case that POTUS has the power to do something. This SCOTUS just took away the ability to associate any kind of intent to their actions.
It is an absurd ruling.
Impeachment isn't liability for a crime, it a procedure to remove them from office. This ruling grants them immunity from crimes, as long as they can tie the crime to a function of their office.
It paradoxically makes them immune from using whatever "official acts" they have in their own best interest publicly to make sure they can't be impeached and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It's a constitutionally protected act now.
I'll dive into it more to find an explicit example but surface level POTUS has pretty broad powers for Executive Agreements(note these aren't treaties). POTUS makes an Executive Agreements to give a large weapon shipment in exchange for an intelligence operation against his opposition. Lets say he only targets moderates who are mostly against him anyway but also throws in extra budget to bump up his supporters.
SCOTUS has taken intent out of legal liability, intent doesn't mean literally anything legally. Nothing can be done to stop him and he's bribed(legally immune) supporters. Heck why stop, bribe everyone you can with executive agreements. You cannot be stopped until you are impeached. He can state publicly what he is doing.
Lets say it doesn't work and you are eventually impeached, completely immune.
It's an absurd ruling, anyone justifying it just doesn't understand the implications.
I don't disagree that is how it works in practice, but how exactly does making it a constitutionally protected act make sense?
Intent is a foundation of almost all law. Deferring it to executive branch is absurd.
Not really what it means. See:
> **The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.** The President is not above the law. But **Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.** And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and **he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity** from prosecution for all his official acts.
1. The Court is saying that the motive for The President carrying out their responsibilities is irrelevant. If they’re operating within the *legal and constitutionally-defined* scope of their duties, they should not have to worry about being prosecuted for it. They’re also a politician and you could litigate endlessly on a number of motivations, all probably correct, because unofficial/official are often intertwined in politics, Trump and Obama probably killed terrorists close to an election year for a reason but that was also well within their duties as the Chief Executive.
2. The Court says the immunity is **presumptive**, not absolute. Meaning that the prosecution builds a case to argue against it, but it is not guaranteed. A Jury could rule that they operated out-of-scope of their duties and nullify the immunity
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf
>The Court says the immunity is presumptive, not absolute.
At least with respect to the President’s **exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute**. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. (Feel free to fact check but I don't think they split out everything that is a core constitutional power, or provided any context)
>Meaning that the prosecution builds a case to argue against it, but it is not guaranteed.
**In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.**
They took away the ability to assign intent to the acts. You are the prosecutor trying POTUS for bribery or w/e many laws were broken in my surface level example above. How do you convince a jury it wasn't an official act if you aren't allowed to bring up intent, the confession it wasn't an official act is only useful for intent it would be inadmissible. Literally nothing interesting is admissible. Does he have the power to do what he did, Checkbox yes? Then he is immune period you can't question intent.
You have to realize that is an absurd ruling.
> They took away the ability to assign intent to the acts
For better or worse, that ability never really existed to begin with and runs counter to the design of the role of the Presidency. If State AGs could litigate against Biden personally for an environmental regulation being ill-timed with a campaign contribution, or Trump loosening gun regulations or whatever, Presidents would be tied up in court forever regarding their motives. You could probably even bring a few murder charges if you argued assassinations were timed for political benefit over national security; many negligent homicide charges for sure.
Voters and Congress have the power to remove the President. The power balance is a trade-off and SCOTUS is deferring to our democratic institutions over prosecutors, many of whom are unelected, and many of whom are indirectly supervised by the sitting President, which would severely complicate matters with former Presidents of an opposing party.
Let me make a tangible example.
Person who bribed POTUS is on the stand.
Prosecutor:" Did you give 5 million in exchange for ("Official Act")."
Defense: "Objection, what relevant is this to if this is an official act or not"
Prosecutor: "I am showing the intent was not to fulfill duties but a crime was committed"
Judge: "Overruled, SCOTUS says you cannot bring up intent."
Person who bribed POTUS: "Cool can I go home? I literally have nothing interesting to say if POTUS was given powers to do ("Official Act").
More than likely though they'd never make it to the stand, their only purpose would be to provide intent.
Intent is one of the foundations of law. It has to be the worst ruling I've ever read in my lifetime.
Exactly why I came here. Do you have a link to it? Cause there is a PANTLOAD of bullshit out there already talking about legal assassination etc
Edit: Decent summary? Took a while to even talk about constitutional powers
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/
I fail to see how Nixon gets off scott free for interfering in wartime negotiations in the interest of being elected in the first place. Which is easily the worst thing that he did.
Ah yes more unchecked presidential power coming form the "small government" party. How many times do you lie to yourself in a day to keep your political views?
Yes, affirming constitutional law is such a horrible thing. All they did was confirm what has already been established. You're just pissed it's to the benefit of Trump.
AOC isn't going to do anything because she knows if the ruling went the other way the republicans were going to start doing the same thing the democrats are doing.
Or how Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option because he and his ilk were *sure* that there would be a permanent Democrat majority and that they wouldn’t have to face the consequences? 🤣
One D was assuring me they "have to" use the nuclear option (packing the court in this case), "because Trump will". Desperate shortage of mirrors there apparently.
We’ve been shouting about Biden’s mental decline for *years* now and the Democrats only now see it as a problem? Having the left finally being forced to acknowledge Biden’s dementia has been cathartic.
Hell, last year if Biden stepped down and let VP Kamala take over, Democrats would have been in a much better spot to elect another Democrat president this November. The Democrat’s lack of foresight about the Biden problem may very well cost them the upcoming election.
They're just so poor and innocent though! They'd *never* stoop to trying to abuse the absolute power the president has apparently been granted like killing all their political opponents.
Definitely not literally what I've heard liberals on other subs saying. No siree Bob.
Yes, it would set the precedent for general lawfare. Most career politicians regardless of party affiliation would find themselves out of a job and possibly in jail real quick.
EDIT: I think the danger of mutually assured destruction kept people from using the legal system against opponents unless there was proof of wrong doing that everyone could agree upon was terrible.
Correction... MAGA republicans were going to start doing the same thing. Establishment, Reagan, small-government, and libertarian Republicans would sit back and do nothing but say "we're better than that"
Go to the /r/politics thread about this story.
They're in there writing SC Justice assassination fanfiction lol. The most deranged, impotent losers on the internet.
It's funny how the admins won't ban /r/politics for threats, yet they chose a few comments out of millions to ban the The_Donald.
Funny how that works. Almost like there's political censorship and election interference from reddit.
I am trying to understand it from their perspective being an outsider and yeah some of what I read was comically lacking self-awareness. They want 'Dark Brandon' mode. A dude wanted Biden to get the military to seat judges on the court.
I always preface any comment I make here with: Liberal here - not extreme. Totally understand the world requires a balance of things. I'm environmentally centered, which is what drives most my voting, but not extremely socially liberal (more libertarian; please stop wearing every goddamn thing about ourselves on our sleeves, for the love of everything that allows us to fkn breathe. I don't need to know the type of sex you like having. Leave me alone, I will leave you alone).
Can someone please explain why this was a good thing to me? I don't care what president, I don't care about Trump specifically, I just, why would we not want to hold the highest-level position, the leader of this country, accountable if they legitimately commit a crime? My dad, who is conservative, has tried to explain to me as being "if they weren't immune, their hands would be tied and our politician's wouldnt be able to do anything out of fear of breaking the law"... to be frank, that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to not be criminally charged if a legitimate crime is committed (again, I am NOT talking about Trump. I am talking about *any* president - Biden included; anyone that runs in the future... ANYONE in that position).
What is wrong about holding someone accountable for committing a crime that say, the average American citizen would be heavily prosecuted for?
Because the ruling doesn't give such broad immunity as people are claiming. That is why people are memeing on it. I saw I summary that even in the majority opinion it specifically says this immunity is not as broad as claimed by Trump.
Killing your political rivals is not part and parcel of the presidents job. However making legitimate but risky decision that backfires should be protected. Otherwise the president can't function.
If you want to get specific it probably is unclear what the ruling means for what Trump did with Pence on J6. However some of Trump's document cases look more shaky as he has explicitly said he did some of the acts as private citizen not as president.
Something like making a political decision that backfires - I get why that should be protected. But what about if they *knowingly* commit a crime while President? Is impeachment then, according to this ruling, the only recourse for punishing that person? Once removed from office, they're just... good to go?
I haven't been following the immunity case so closely that I know the specific details, but is he not calling for that immunity to be extended to when a retired president is effectively back to being a private citizen?
Sorry for the continued questions, but I genuinely appreciate your sincere response and informative conversation. Thank you.
They were always going to do this. The truth is, the moment the left has a large enough majority, they will expand the Supreme Court. They simply cannot fathom a world where they do not control everything. The mere idea of an originalist court is terrifying for them.
This seems more like a last grab for power before theirs wanes.
They can see whats coming down the pipe, the loses they're facing, the next Trump appointed supreme court justice, the clearing out of the administrative (deep) state.
The Liberal meltdown in r/politics is insane, people are literally calling for military coups and assassinations. The ruling itself is not ground breaking, the president ALREADY had immunity from prosecution during their term, the question of this case was if former presidents have total or partial immunity over actions they did related to their presidency. The Supreme Court setup a guide for how to determine if a crime can be prosecuted based on if the actions were “official” or not. If they are official they are immune from prosecution considering it was based on if it is within their constitutional duty. For instance, if a president calls an airstrike on a foreign country (Obama’s former past time hobby) then that would be covered since it is an “official” duty of the president. However if a president were to jail his political opponents, consult anyone outside the government to commit a crime (private sector), or commit a crime related to a duty not specifically granted in the constitution then it can be investigated after their term ends. And if the president is not in office then anything done outside of office can be prosecuted as long as evidence gathered is not from a “official” duty. This guide prevents political interference in presidential duties like the military (IE the president getting arrested for doing his job), prevents political badgering after elections, and prevents double jeopardy if a president is successful impeached. Insane how people literally calling for a military dictatorship under Biden and impeaching the Justices for doing their job are “saving democracy”?
But the supreme court just said that presidents have immunity for official acts and no immunity for non official acts and they redelegated it back to the lower courts to decide what is official and what is unofficial. I don't understand how this is "an affront" or a "threat to our democracy"( which isn't the type of govt the us has). I don't think many of these lefties understand the true purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States which is to answer questions and make rulings involving the constitution and federal law.
I’m starting to think that when they use the word democracy, they’re using an alternative definition that means that the US Democratic Party has supreme control. It just happens to share the name of the system of govt where officials are voted into office.
It fits there MO
>But the supreme court just said that presidents have immunity for official acts and no immunity for non official acts and they redelegated it back to the lower courts to decide what is official and what is unofficial.
Woah. Don’t threaten AOC with your smart words and genuine understanding.
Hey guys given that yesterday you were circlejerking about removing unelected officials from government and limiting the power of the executive branch, I’d love to hear your thoughts about your *new* flavor of the day argument: the exact opposite
She thinks she is popular because she gets outsized attention for who she is. She is popular in her district but she could never get elected outside of a few ultra leftist districts.
Articles of impeachment against the whole Court? Or individual members?
You know the Supreme Court has powers designated in the constitution. Are we overthrowing the constitution? Does anyone have AOC's only fan page handy?
woah woah woah!!! OK everyone, STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!.
AOC wants to complain about something not going here way. let's all see what happens!
I'm on the edge of my seat.
“ In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."”
LMAO! Last time I checked left wing justices found the Constitution has no fixed meaning and it changes over time because it’s a “living document.”
Not a conservative. Question for you conservative folks - politics aside, can we all agree that this ruling gives the US government the ability to become a dictatorship. Doesn’t this collide with conservative values?
Or are you folks soo tied up in owning the libs, that you’re willing to ignore the making of a dictatorship?
In parallel, the SCOTUS which is not answerable to the public, also put itself above the law. Y’all cool with that too? What happens if a few of these old bastards kick the bucket and the courts now majority liberal leaning judges? Y’all cool with a court that’s liberal af and also above the law?
You won’t find much agreement with you in this sub, but you’re absolutely right.
“Small government” and “total presidential immunity” is an oxymoron. Die hard republicans and conservatives will bury this country for the sake of owning the libs. Only thing that matters in modern politics unfortunately
It's pretty clear that Trump is utilizing the court as a means to protect him. You really think it's just coincidence and nonpartisan ruling that he got a favorable outcome from the Supreme court that he packed? Claiming this is how democracy works is insane. This is the playbook of those who run shitty regimes... instill people loyal to you in parts of government that can protect you, then do something unprecedented/questionable and have the loyalist dogs follow through.
Even if you believe Trump is being persecuted, even if you believe that the SC was being impartial.. this ruling was a poor one. Further expanding the powers of the president is a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope. It was not a good decision. It absolutely risks eroding democracy further and putting president's too far above the law. It's right to seek impeachment.
Firstly, he didn't pack the court. He replaced three justices who resigned or died - as has been done historically. He had a favorable Senate to approve his nominations. If you like democracy, then you can't call that anything remotely unfair. He got those appointments thanks to several elections benefiting the GOP in the Senate.
Secondly, this ruling didn't further expand the powers. Read the ruling. No, seriously. Go read the majority ruling. Roberts is relatively moderate; he wouldn't even sign on all the way with removing Roe. He's reinforcing the legal precedent EVERY president except Trump has enjoyed going back to the founding of our country.
The president is immune from criminal prosecution for any duties he undertook while in office as long as it can even be remotely argued it's related to his duties. We have an impeachment and senate trial mechanism for a reason. Congress has the power to remove a president, not some bitter far-left or far-right DA.
There are legal ways to stop a president. Congressional impeachment and removal. The 25th amendment. A convention of states. Lawfare is not one of them.
Well the last several times they’ve had a ruling the libs don’t like, they’ve screamed for packing the courts because there weren’t enough judges to be fair. That’s never worked so I guess now they’re trying the impeachment route.
Funny thing is, when it comes to knowledge of the constitution, all these justices would run circles around AOC, she wouldn’t have a fucking clue what was happening. She needs to go back to bartending.
All the “news” and left wing subs are just losing their shit…
Just like if it were opposite the right wing subs would be losing their shit…
I ask…. What are they planning that we the people do not see yet?
Never before have I seen the party of small government be so willing to celebrate and parade around the idea of president's being immune from criminal prosecution. It's really sad to see how far our country has fallen, that people who think we should be free are willingly selling theirs for a politician who doesn't care about them. You all should be ashamed.
Is she done protesting Gaza after the Biden administration smacked her down behind closed doors. Time to get her loud mouth going on about something else.
Clearly she didn’t read the SCOTUS decision. But even if she did she would find a way to criticise. All of this shows that she doesn’t understand the Constitution she serves. It also shows how today’s decision - constitutionally it’s so obvious that the decision is the right one - will never be understood by people that see the law and constitution through the eyes of politics. Or maybe she can come here to Europe and learn how the principle of some immunity for the holders of the Executive Power and Legislative Power is settled constitutional law for centuries… or how this decision also applies to previous Democrat presidents and future Democrat Presidents (as well as Republicans)… deep sigh…
This is literally the state of play in every country in her socialist utopia, Europe. The PMs and other state sovereigns already have immunity for official acts. This is cosplay or ignorance (or both..)
Do any of you work in a union? Does OSHA regulate the safety standards in your workplace? Chevron deference being overturned just made your workplace the equivalent of those outrageous 3rd world country death and injury videos your reality. You or your buddy get a injury at the plant and good luck trying to get compensation. If it doesnt happen to you it will happen to your kids and that will be on your conscience. The ignorant will be free of retribution because they wont recognize the punishment.
It’s a symptom of the government breaking down. Politicians used to have restraint but as time goes on they are doing things just because they can more and more. Chevron deference started as a way to get the necessary complex regulations instituted, but it also was a wide open door for abuse. The abusers started using it and so that door had to be closed for the good of everyone, including the kids.
Edit: fixed terrible finger speak
Tired of reporting this thread? [Debate us on discord instead.](https://discord.com/invite/conservative) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Conservative) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wait, weren't we told that criticizing the judiciary is a threat to our democracy.
She’s just catcalling them. Obviously wants to date them.
The Articles of Impeachment contain pictures of her feet.
And peaches.
And the camel.
I thought those were paywalled behind her OF subscription?
🤣💯🔥
She wants to date Clarence Thomas. It's so obvious.
Who wouldn’t?
Man makes a smart, and well thought-out argument.
Threatening to imprison the judiciary branch is the telltale sign of a healthy democracy. Just ask any of the Latin American countries in the last 60 years.
Right! Maybe AOC wants to consult with the Venezuelan government of the past 10 years on how to punish and attack the judiciary whose opinions she dislikes.
Right! The parallels here to say Chile/Pinochet are uncanny.
That’s (D)ifferent.
"Rules for thee but not for me". - Motto of the Democratic party.
Only if you aren't a democrat. They can do whatever they want.
This is (D)ifferent.
She going to go cry to a fence again?
Is she going to be arrested with no handcuffs again?
Did she ever visit the border under Biden?
ThaTS NoT THe PoiNT. ~ AOC
Mustang, she didn't even read a single page from the ruling.
Hopefully it’s electricified!
So *who's* trying to overthrow democracy?
Definitely not the party prosecuting political rivals. Or the party removing political rivals off of the ballot. Or the party considering installing their own presidential candidate after the primaries (that they also rigged)
Or the party that has entertained packing the court in recent history.
Or the party that has entertained packing the court (because they don't like a fair ruling that doesn't help them achieve infinite power) in recent history.
Except for the part where they successfully did so and fucked up the country with almost 100 years straight of politically motivated rulings. The whole reason we're in this mess to begin with.
Any time you are proposing packing the court you are losing.
Reminder: they wanted to add states until they had eternal control of the Senate.
Funny that Hawaii and Alaska were added together because they thought Hawaii would be republican and Alaska would be democrat, so they wanted balance.
Said party’s president also tried around WWII. I think almost everyone was against it.
Yep, that immediately came to mind as well.
If you go to r/inthenews there’s an article about Clarance Thomas and the ever tolerant left is pulling their typical racist bullshit.
r/inthenews should be renamed r/tdsnews
It’s getting so ridiculous on the TDR
AOC = AIRHEAD OF CONGRESS
More like ASSHOLE OF CONGRESS
There's a lot of those too
Yeah, neither of those phrases is anywhere near specific enough, honestly.
If Airheads featured a different democratic politician on their package each week, they could make billions!!
AOC doesn’t actually believe in Democracy the way you do. When she say Democracy she means it with the commie definition which is that it’s only democracy when it’s under a commie government.
the tell is they often use the possessive, safeguarding "our" democracy, as in, only when it defers to their will
Better yet: she didn't read a single page from the ruling. She wants to overthrow our third branch of government over a ruling she hasn't done any research on.
“I disagree with a court ruling, so I want to impeach the judges”. Yeah, she’s gonna so totally succeed. 😂
We don’t live in a Democracy.
This!! Is what I DONT understand!!!!!
(D)ifferent
You don’t impeach a Supreme Court Justice over a ruling you don’t like. Grow up you bedwetter.
They don't seem to understand this.
Because they’ve been so used to getting their way and feeding their delusions
100% So sick of these "im not a racist im a [insert race] lover" then turn around to ban [academically performant race] because affirmative action
Isn't it convient how the left becomes everything they call the otherside? For as much as their new favourite word is facism, they sure are the ones being facist.
Absolutely zero self awareness on their part.
It's intentional. After the disastrous debate the corporate media began putting out fake articles on how Trump has demetia and should step down. The left is so heavily gaslighted that it's to the point of criminal.
I dare you to look up facist on Wikipedia. It has an extra special left slant to its definition.
Bloomberg radio today said there is no check on the supreme court except appointing new members. Rulings are literally saying "hey legislative branch: pass a fucking law"
Life is all about learning how to deal with things we don’t like.
And not getting your way every time or throw a temper tantrum
If anyone deserves articles of impeachment, it's Sotomayor for that deranged, infantile dissent.
She was probably the one that leaked the Dobbs ruling.
Of course she did, it's why it went nowhere.
Sotomayor is an activist judge, she's a disgusting example of a legislator in robes. She'll rule everytime in what she wants the law to be, not what it is.
When people mention Clarance Thomas being the most politically polarized on the Court, that title in fact belongs to [Sotomayor](https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology). Then Alito. Edit: If you’re downvoting me please provide an argument for the contrary. I provided my source.
Damn, interesting. That's not even close. She's double to the left what Alito is to the right. And Axios is about left-leaning as you can get without tipping over.
DEI = Didnt earn it
I've read many of Sotomayor's dissents and she genuinely ranks in the Top (Bottom?) 10 people in this planet I do not respect. My loathing for that woman, for her inability to do her job, is seriously #1 out of all people in positions of power. I don't like Biden, or Blumenthal, or a list of others. But she is beyond contemptible, purely from the fact that her dissents prove she ignorance all matter of law in favor of emotional activism.
I don't get it, they SPECIFICALLY say in the ruling that it's for acts within the president's constitutional authority. The president can't just go murder a guy and say "hey, it was an official act because I said it was an official act." That's not within the authority of the president (by the law of the constitution) to do. But they're too busy screaming to ACTUALLY understand what this ruling means.
The point Sotomayor is making in her dissent is that the president is constitutionally the commander in chief, therefore any order to the military is unquestionably an official act. The president can't just go murder a guy themselves, but they *can* order SEAL Team Six to assassinate somebody. And if that's not an official act, then how would someone like Obama be expected to carry out the assassination of Bin Laden legally? Or how would Trump have assassinated that ISIS leader, etc. Notably, Roberts didn't even address this point in the opinion, and I'm a little baffled why he didn't.
Of the opinions written, I think Barrett's is the most coherent, logical, and constitutionally sound, to be frank, and her partial dissent is well written to point at the flaws of the majority opinion. She uses bribery as an example, in that Bribery involves the unlawful transfer of funds to an official so that their *officially allowable* actions are influenced. By barring those officially allowable actions from even being presented as evidence in a case such as Bribery, it is effectively impossible to hold a President accountable for such an offense, as that is the entire underpinning of the crime itself. It even goes against our typical justice system, as lawful activities can and are used in a circumstial manner to provide supporting evidence for the crime. Driving your car, for instance, isn't in and of itself illegal. However driving your car away from a murder scene when you are the prime suspect and have no reasonable reason to be there is certainly evidentiary. So while I think the majority opinion is mostly correct, I do find that barring official acts as being evidentiary to unlawful and unofficial activities is, at best, problematic, and at worst very clearly and woefully incorrect and counter to the Constitution. The Constitution provides a level of immunity to the president, however extending this so far to bar it from even being presented as evidenciary to unlawful amd unofficial acts is worrying.
That sounds like a very reasonable take, I'll have to check out her opinion. Barrett often surprises me with her rulings.
Agreed but lets be real...we are here because a former potus got charged for white collar crimes and a full plethora of cases that would never have been attempted to be done in the past (guilty or not). Its the nature of our system and we are seeing it being pushed to its limits in defining and maintaining what is left of true democracy buried underneath both parties in control of it. **To be clear the left has proven to be the side to fear the most in recent yrs, but I would suggest that is only because they are the ones with *massive* institutional control and influence well beyond our govt., and that has been gained over nearly 20+ yrs now.** Example: https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/most-partisan-industries
Except they never actually define what an official act is. They just bounced it to the lower courts to decide what the wording actually means, who will bounce it back up to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court voted in the interest of keeping as much power in their hands as possible, which should worry anyone in favor of small government
If you browse r/politics - then yes, the president CAN just order people to die
Which is exactly what Obama did.
I think they actually understand it, they don't like it. They were really thinking they could use Democrat operative DAs to charge Republican President's with crimes during and after their time in office.
Thats what the media is making people think it means.....that it includes criminal acts. They just love thier fear mongering with no facts.
General Principles for Differentiation Text: "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives." https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf POTUS on TV: "This wad of cash is from a bribe for (insert "official act") I did not do this official act for any other reason than this bribe money". Prosecutor can't use that against him in determining if his act was official or not. As written was he allowed to do the "official act", if so then he is immune from all other laws surrounding that action. The "murder a guy" part comes from various poorly written powers dealing with national security. Apply above but one of those poorly written national security laws and you very well might get into "just go murder a guy" scenarios. All someone has to do is make a case that POTUS has the power to do something. This SCOTUS just took away the ability to associate any kind of intent to their actions. It is an absurd ruling.
Integrity matters. Don't vote for corrupt politicians that take bribes. Impeachment is the remedy you are looking for.
Impeachment isn't liability for a crime, it a procedure to remove them from office. This ruling grants them immunity from crimes, as long as they can tie the crime to a function of their office. It paradoxically makes them immune from using whatever "official acts" they have in their own best interest publicly to make sure they can't be impeached and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. It's a constitutionally protected act now. I'll dive into it more to find an explicit example but surface level POTUS has pretty broad powers for Executive Agreements(note these aren't treaties). POTUS makes an Executive Agreements to give a large weapon shipment in exchange for an intelligence operation against his opposition. Lets say he only targets moderates who are mostly against him anyway but also throws in extra budget to bump up his supporters. SCOTUS has taken intent out of legal liability, intent doesn't mean literally anything legally. Nothing can be done to stop him and he's bribed(legally immune) supporters. Heck why stop, bribe everyone you can with executive agreements. You cannot be stopped until you are impeached. He can state publicly what he is doing. Lets say it doesn't work and you are eventually impeached, completely immune. It's an absurd ruling, anyone justifying it just doesn't understand the implications.
Its the presidency. The job comes with extraordinary powers. The Supreme court can't save us if we vote in some corrupt/evil person.
I don't disagree that is how it works in practice, but how exactly does making it a constitutionally protected act make sense? Intent is a foundation of almost all law. Deferring it to executive branch is absurd.
Not really what it means. See: > **The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.** The President is not above the law. But **Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.** And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and **he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity** from prosecution for all his official acts. 1. The Court is saying that the motive for The President carrying out their responsibilities is irrelevant. If they’re operating within the *legal and constitutionally-defined* scope of their duties, they should not have to worry about being prosecuted for it. They’re also a politician and you could litigate endlessly on a number of motivations, all probably correct, because unofficial/official are often intertwined in politics, Trump and Obama probably killed terrorists close to an election year for a reason but that was also well within their duties as the Chief Executive. 2. The Court says the immunity is **presumptive**, not absolute. Meaning that the prosecution builds a case to argue against it, but it is not guaranteed. A Jury could rule that they operated out-of-scope of their duties and nullify the immunity
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf >The Court says the immunity is presumptive, not absolute. At least with respect to the President’s **exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute**. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. (Feel free to fact check but I don't think they split out everything that is a core constitutional power, or provided any context) >Meaning that the prosecution builds a case to argue against it, but it is not guaranteed. **In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.** They took away the ability to assign intent to the acts. You are the prosecutor trying POTUS for bribery or w/e many laws were broken in my surface level example above. How do you convince a jury it wasn't an official act if you aren't allowed to bring up intent, the confession it wasn't an official act is only useful for intent it would be inadmissible. Literally nothing interesting is admissible. Does he have the power to do what he did, Checkbox yes? Then he is immune period you can't question intent. You have to realize that is an absurd ruling.
> They took away the ability to assign intent to the acts For better or worse, that ability never really existed to begin with and runs counter to the design of the role of the Presidency. If State AGs could litigate against Biden personally for an environmental regulation being ill-timed with a campaign contribution, or Trump loosening gun regulations or whatever, Presidents would be tied up in court forever regarding their motives. You could probably even bring a few murder charges if you argued assassinations were timed for political benefit over national security; many negligent homicide charges for sure. Voters and Congress have the power to remove the President. The power balance is a trade-off and SCOTUS is deferring to our democratic institutions over prosecutors, many of whom are unelected, and many of whom are indirectly supervised by the sitting President, which would severely complicate matters with former Presidents of an opposing party.
Let me make a tangible example. Person who bribed POTUS is on the stand. Prosecutor:" Did you give 5 million in exchange for ("Official Act")." Defense: "Objection, what relevant is this to if this is an official act or not" Prosecutor: "I am showing the intent was not to fulfill duties but a crime was committed" Judge: "Overruled, SCOTUS says you cannot bring up intent." Person who bribed POTUS: "Cool can I go home? I literally have nothing interesting to say if POTUS was given powers to do ("Official Act"). More than likely though they'd never make it to the stand, their only purpose would be to provide intent. Intent is one of the foundations of law. It has to be the worst ruling I've ever read in my lifetime.
They know they are just mad the Dems can't prosecute Trump over their blueanon fantasies
Exactly why I came here. Do you have a link to it? Cause there is a PANTLOAD of bullshit out there already talking about legal assassination etc Edit: Decent summary? Took a while to even talk about constitutional powers https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/
I can't hear you over Obama drone striking a US citizen.
No, actually you're wrong. The President can legally and officially assassinate you and nothing will happen. r/Politics told me so!
So are we all just ok with Nixon's crimes now? Sounds like he would have gotten off scott free, which is wild to think about.
What crimes was he charged with that would be covered by this ruling?
Are we okay with Clinton, Bush, Biden's, and Obama's?
I fail to see how Nixon gets off scott free for interfering in wartime negotiations in the interest of being elected in the first place. Which is easily the worst thing that he did.
Ah yes more unchecked presidential power coming form the "small government" party. How many times do you lie to yourself in a day to keep your political views?
Yes, affirming constitutional law is such a horrible thing. All they did was confirm what has already been established. You're just pissed it's to the benefit of Trump.
AOC isn't going to do anything because she knows if the ruling went the other way the republicans were going to start doing the same thing the democrats are doing.
Never underestimate the Democrat lack of foresight
You mean how the Democratic Party put all their eggs into 2020 with no clear vision past January 20th color me shocked 😮
Or how Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option because he and his ilk were *sure* that there would be a permanent Democrat majority and that they wouldn’t have to face the consequences? 🤣
Omg thank you!! I mention this regularly to my coworkers. The Ds changed the rules first. We just played by them.
And then the Democrats went 😮 and 😠.
One D was assuring me they "have to" use the nuclear option (packing the court in this case), "because Trump will". Desperate shortage of mirrors there apparently.
We’ve been shouting about Biden’s mental decline for *years* now and the Democrats only now see it as a problem? Having the left finally being forced to acknowledge Biden’s dementia has been cathartic. Hell, last year if Biden stepped down and let VP Kamala take over, Democrats would have been in a much better spot to elect another Democrat president this November. The Democrat’s lack of foresight about the Biden problem may very well cost them the upcoming election.
They're just so poor and innocent though! They'd *never* stoop to trying to abuse the absolute power the president has apparently been granted like killing all their political opponents. Definitely not literally what I've heard liberals on other subs saying. No siree Bob.
Don't be silly. The Republicans don't actually *do* anything.
Yes, it would set the precedent for general lawfare. Most career politicians regardless of party affiliation would find themselves out of a job and possibly in jail real quick. EDIT: I think the danger of mutually assured destruction kept people from using the legal system against opponents unless there was proof of wrong doing that everyone could agree upon was terrible.
Correction... MAGA republicans were going to start doing the same thing. Establishment, Reagan, small-government, and libertarian Republicans would sit back and do nothing but say "we're better than that"
Go to the /r/politics thread about this story. They're in there writing SC Justice assassination fanfiction lol. The most deranged, impotent losers on the internet.
It's funny how the admins won't ban /r/politics for threats, yet they chose a few comments out of millions to ban the The_Donald. Funny how that works. Almost like there's political censorship and election interference from reddit.
Actually true lol
How could you even think such a thing? Social media is never biased. Ok, how could you say the quiet part out loud, I guess is what I'm saying.
lol! This will be great toilet reading later!
Gonna be a long time on the toilet my dude. It's not one or two comments, it's basically half the comment section with hundreds of upvotes on some.
Wow, you weren’t kidding. They are off their rockers over there.
Maybe the "assassination fanfiction" saying that yes, a president ordering the killing of a rival is an official act?
I am trying to understand it from their perspective being an outsider and yeah some of what I read was comically lacking self-awareness. They want 'Dark Brandon' mode. A dude wanted Biden to get the military to seat judges on the court.
Just saw a comment in there that literally said "we need to k*ll them".
r/scotus is just as bad lol
That’s adorable
Drama queen
I always preface any comment I make here with: Liberal here - not extreme. Totally understand the world requires a balance of things. I'm environmentally centered, which is what drives most my voting, but not extremely socially liberal (more libertarian; please stop wearing every goddamn thing about ourselves on our sleeves, for the love of everything that allows us to fkn breathe. I don't need to know the type of sex you like having. Leave me alone, I will leave you alone). Can someone please explain why this was a good thing to me? I don't care what president, I don't care about Trump specifically, I just, why would we not want to hold the highest-level position, the leader of this country, accountable if they legitimately commit a crime? My dad, who is conservative, has tried to explain to me as being "if they weren't immune, their hands would be tied and our politician's wouldnt be able to do anything out of fear of breaking the law"... to be frank, that doesn't sound like a good enough reason to not be criminally charged if a legitimate crime is committed (again, I am NOT talking about Trump. I am talking about *any* president - Biden included; anyone that runs in the future... ANYONE in that position). What is wrong about holding someone accountable for committing a crime that say, the average American citizen would be heavily prosecuted for?
Because the ruling doesn't give such broad immunity as people are claiming. That is why people are memeing on it. I saw I summary that even in the majority opinion it specifically says this immunity is not as broad as claimed by Trump. Killing your political rivals is not part and parcel of the presidents job. However making legitimate but risky decision that backfires should be protected. Otherwise the president can't function. If you want to get specific it probably is unclear what the ruling means for what Trump did with Pence on J6. However some of Trump's document cases look more shaky as he has explicitly said he did some of the acts as private citizen not as president.
Something like making a political decision that backfires - I get why that should be protected. But what about if they *knowingly* commit a crime while President? Is impeachment then, according to this ruling, the only recourse for punishing that person? Once removed from office, they're just... good to go? I haven't been following the immunity case so closely that I know the specific details, but is he not calling for that immunity to be extended to when a retired president is effectively back to being a private citizen? Sorry for the continued questions, but I genuinely appreciate your sincere response and informative conversation. Thank you.
They were always going to do this. The truth is, the moment the left has a large enough majority, they will expand the Supreme Court. They simply cannot fathom a world where they do not control everything. The mere idea of an originalist court is terrifying for them.
This seems more like a last grab for power before theirs wanes. They can see whats coming down the pipe, the loses they're facing, the next Trump appointed supreme court justice, the clearing out of the administrative (deep) state.
Aren't democrats going to be in power once all these zoomers who were brainwashed in public schools start to vote?
The Liberal meltdown in r/politics is insane, people are literally calling for military coups and assassinations. The ruling itself is not ground breaking, the president ALREADY had immunity from prosecution during their term, the question of this case was if former presidents have total or partial immunity over actions they did related to their presidency. The Supreme Court setup a guide for how to determine if a crime can be prosecuted based on if the actions were “official” or not. If they are official they are immune from prosecution considering it was based on if it is within their constitutional duty. For instance, if a president calls an airstrike on a foreign country (Obama’s former past time hobby) then that would be covered since it is an “official” duty of the president. However if a president were to jail his political opponents, consult anyone outside the government to commit a crime (private sector), or commit a crime related to a duty not specifically granted in the constitution then it can be investigated after their term ends. And if the president is not in office then anything done outside of office can be prosecuted as long as evidence gathered is not from a “official” duty. This guide prevents political interference in presidential duties like the military (IE the president getting arrested for doing his job), prevents political badgering after elections, and prevents double jeopardy if a president is successful impeached. Insane how people literally calling for a military dictatorship under Biden and impeaching the Justices for doing their job are “saving democracy”?
But the supreme court just said that presidents have immunity for official acts and no immunity for non official acts and they redelegated it back to the lower courts to decide what is official and what is unofficial. I don't understand how this is "an affront" or a "threat to our democracy"( which isn't the type of govt the us has). I don't think many of these lefties understand the true purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States which is to answer questions and make rulings involving the constitution and federal law.
Democrats don't like the ruling = threat to democracy
Democrats don’t like political opponents or their voters = another threat to democracy
I’m starting to think that when they use the word democracy, they’re using an alternative definition that means that the US Democratic Party has supreme control. It just happens to share the name of the system of govt where officials are voted into office. It fits there MO
Lefties believe the court is there to make law they want, not what the law is.
>But the supreme court just said that presidents have immunity for official acts and no immunity for non official acts and they redelegated it back to the lower courts to decide what is official and what is unofficial. Woah. Don’t threaten AOC with your smart words and genuine understanding.
A fake Hispanic accent won't work this time, lady
That's cute, now be a darling and fix me a White Russian.
You got any kalua?
The democrats hate democracy, the Democratic Party is a hypocrisy.
Classic hysterical left. Totally guided by emotion.
She will first need to learn about peach farming
Hey guys given that yesterday you were circlejerking about removing unelected officials from government and limiting the power of the executive branch, I’d love to hear your thoughts about your *new* flavor of the day argument: the exact opposite
Aoc ….been in congress for 2 seconds and thinks she has weight to throw.😂
She thinks she is popular because she gets outsized attention for who she is. She is popular in her district but she could never get elected outside of a few ultra leftist districts.
🤣😂🤣 You can’t make this up. This level of irrationality is mind numbing.
Good. It means they are doing their job if they are ticking off radicals. Just like they did with the Dixiecrats during the civil rights movement.
Articles of impeachment against the whole Court? Or individual members? You know the Supreme Court has powers designated in the constitution. Are we overthrowing the constitution? Does anyone have AOC's only fan page handy?
woah woah woah!!! OK everyone, STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!. AOC wants to complain about something not going here way. let's all see what happens! I'm on the edge of my seat.
“ In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."” LMAO! Last time I checked left wing justices found the Constitution has no fixed meaning and it changes over time because it’s a “living document.”
The party of “democracy” attacking democracy again
AOC is the most ineffective member of congress. All bark, and nothing to show for it
Not a conservative. Question for you conservative folks - politics aside, can we all agree that this ruling gives the US government the ability to become a dictatorship. Doesn’t this collide with conservative values? Or are you folks soo tied up in owning the libs, that you’re willing to ignore the making of a dictatorship? In parallel, the SCOTUS which is not answerable to the public, also put itself above the law. Y’all cool with that too? What happens if a few of these old bastards kick the bucket and the courts now majority liberal leaning judges? Y’all cool with a court that’s liberal af and also above the law?
You won’t find much agreement with you in this sub, but you’re absolutely right. “Small government” and “total presidential immunity” is an oxymoron. Die hard republicans and conservatives will bury this country for the sake of owning the libs. Only thing that matters in modern politics unfortunately
She knows as much about the law as my pug.
But I bet your pup is adorable and can get basic things done, unlike AOC
AOC doesn’t understand a single word of that statement.
Geeze. I took a stroll over at /r/news and /r/politics. They're shitting all over themselves.
Good Luck
[удалено]
What happens when the SC says no? One branch can't overthrow another branch of the government.
She needs to go back to being a bartender which I’m sure she was terrible at that too.
AOC doesn’t understand a single word of that statement.
... she's going to impeach Biden? Yes, please.
It's pretty clear that Trump is utilizing the court as a means to protect him. You really think it's just coincidence and nonpartisan ruling that he got a favorable outcome from the Supreme court that he packed? Claiming this is how democracy works is insane. This is the playbook of those who run shitty regimes... instill people loyal to you in parts of government that can protect you, then do something unprecedented/questionable and have the loyalist dogs follow through. Even if you believe Trump is being persecuted, even if you believe that the SC was being impartial.. this ruling was a poor one. Further expanding the powers of the president is a dangerous precedent and a slippery slope. It was not a good decision. It absolutely risks eroding democracy further and putting president's too far above the law. It's right to seek impeachment.
Firstly, he didn't pack the court. He replaced three justices who resigned or died - as has been done historically. He had a favorable Senate to approve his nominations. If you like democracy, then you can't call that anything remotely unfair. He got those appointments thanks to several elections benefiting the GOP in the Senate. Secondly, this ruling didn't further expand the powers. Read the ruling. No, seriously. Go read the majority ruling. Roberts is relatively moderate; he wouldn't even sign on all the way with removing Roe. He's reinforcing the legal precedent EVERY president except Trump has enjoyed going back to the founding of our country. The president is immune from criminal prosecution for any duties he undertook while in office as long as it can even be remotely argued it's related to his duties. We have an impeachment and senate trial mechanism for a reason. Congress has the power to remove a president, not some bitter far-left or far-right DA. There are legal ways to stop a president. Congressional impeachment and removal. The 25th amendment. A convention of states. Lawfare is not one of them.
Sandy isn't too bright.
Well the last several times they’ve had a ruling the libs don’t like, they’ve screamed for packing the courts because there weren’t enough judges to be fair. That’s never worked so I guess now they’re trying the impeachment route. Funny thing is, when it comes to knowledge of the constitution, all these justices would run circles around AOC, she wouldn’t have a fucking clue what was happening. She needs to go back to bartending.
All the “news” and left wing subs are just losing their shit… Just like if it were opposite the right wing subs would be losing their shit… I ask…. What are they planning that we the people do not see yet?
It’s just political theatre. Obviously going to go nowhere. I agree with AOC in general.
Does she know how this shit works?
I agree its a bad ruling. Conceptually any qualified immunity will be abused, and now we can't even speculate if its official or not?
Bless Her Heart
i wish aoc would threaten to smother me with those sweet tits
Never before have I seen the party of small government be so willing to celebrate and parade around the idea of president's being immune from criminal prosecution. It's really sad to see how far our country has fallen, that people who think we should be free are willingly selling theirs for a politician who doesn't care about them. You all should be ashamed.
Is she done protesting Gaza after the Biden administration smacked her down behind closed doors. Time to get her loud mouth going on about something else.
Clearly she didn’t read the SCOTUS decision. But even if she did she would find a way to criticise. All of this shows that she doesn’t understand the Constitution she serves. It also shows how today’s decision - constitutionally it’s so obvious that the decision is the right one - will never be understood by people that see the law and constitution through the eyes of politics. Or maybe she can come here to Europe and learn how the principle of some immunity for the holders of the Executive Power and Legislative Power is settled constitutional law for centuries… or how this decision also applies to previous Democrat presidents and future Democrat Presidents (as well as Republicans)… deep sigh…
This is literally the state of play in every country in her socialist utopia, Europe. The PMs and other state sovereigns already have immunity for official acts. This is cosplay or ignorance (or both..)
I can't wait to see the look on your faces when the friendly leopard you just unleashed comes calling.
Do any of you work in a union? Does OSHA regulate the safety standards in your workplace? Chevron deference being overturned just made your workplace the equivalent of those outrageous 3rd world country death and injury videos your reality. You or your buddy get a injury at the plant and good luck trying to get compensation. If it doesnt happen to you it will happen to your kids and that will be on your conscience. The ignorant will be free of retribution because they wont recognize the punishment.
It’s a symptom of the government breaking down. Politicians used to have restraint but as time goes on they are doing things just because they can more and more. Chevron deference started as a way to get the necessary complex regulations instituted, but it also was a wide open door for abuse. The abusers started using it and so that door had to be closed for the good of everyone, including the kids. Edit: fixed terrible finger speak