Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
And you have all the reasons to be terrified, the US in case of a Trump victory will either:
a) Go isolationist, dissolve the NATO, then let the power vacuum to be filled by Russia and China (one is better than the other), all while a big ultranationalist movement will claim to fix the issues.
b) Make whatever insanity Trump’s christofascist call “morals” into the global standards for human rights, heavily censor the internet, etc.
A second Trump victory will have dire consequences for the rest of the world.
If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to “retire” SCOTUS justices not be an official act that’s immune to prosecution?
Shooting political rivals probably isn’t an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?
It’s ok, the the president can now just have them assassinated as a defence of the constitution.
Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
That’s not what the dissenting judge said.
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
You’re delusional.
Funny, that’s what I think about all the people clutching their pearls crying democracy is dead because of this ruling.
I think that’s a classic symptom of delusion TBH… everyone else is nuts and you’re the only person who sees things how they really are.
Lemmy isn’t representative of the US. If you consumed any media outside your bubble you’d see that.
One of us sure is stuck in a bubble.
We should definitely trust the 1 day old Lemmy account over the dissenting judges.
Just like “nothing changed” when Roe was overturned? Got it.
“Official capacity” has not been defined yet so we don’t know what the limits are. We will have to wait and see.
I can’t believe how many (I don’t know, shills?) there are about this.
I’m not American, I’m sitting out side, looking in, and watching the USA become a fascist dictatorship, and I’m terrified.
Every other democracy’s right wing looks up to the USA for inspiration for their own fascist agenda.
If this all goes sideways from Americans, we’re following shortly afterwards.
And you have all the reasons to be terrified, the US in case of a Trump victory will either:
a) Go isolationist, dissolve the NATO, then let the power vacuum to be filled by Russia and China (one is better than the other), all while a big ultranationalist movement will claim to fix the issues.
b) Make whatever insanity Trump’s christofascist call “morals” into the global standards for human rights, heavily censor the internet, etc.
A second Trump victory will have dire consequences for the rest of the world.
Your claim is this ruling changed nothing?
If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to “retire” SCOTUS justices not be an official act that’s immune to prosecution?
Does that immunity ruling also apply to the VP? If yes, then Kamala Harris can do a few things, all she needs is a fully loaded handgun.
Shooting political rivals probably isn’t an official act, but presumably he could ask, she could shoot and he could pardon and I think it would be untouchable?