this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
639 points (98.8% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7209 readers
316 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I doubt Republicans will support this. Really it comes down to if Biden is going to use his newly gained "official" immunity and look like a dictator, or if Trump gets elected who will most definitely use a cover of immunity to target his political foes. Maybe this is Democrats attempt at we tried to be civil, but you gave us no other choice.
However, this doesn't go far enough quick enough to revoke the latest decision by the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court has done is actually told the Jan. 6 rioters that under a Trump presidency that a dictatorship is permitted. It doesn't matter if they are impeached, replaced or the decision is reversed. Trump will do as he pleases and point to this moment and say "look, they said it was fine and Democrats didn't respect the rule of law."
Trends indicate a strong no.
Direct statements strongly indicate yes.
The play here is that it bought Trump time to campaign without worrying about prison.
I can appreciate your frustration and I share that sentiment, but the Supreme Court changed nothing with the "immunity" decision. No one that follows legal procedure was surprised by this, and anyone claiming to be is either ignorant or is intentionally conflating the significance. Presidential immunity has been a thing for a long time and SCOTUS has changed nothing.
Oh really? Do you mind going ahead and sharing your law license? I'd like to ensure the person trying to give me advice right now is also an attorney.
I know links are difficult, but if you just place your cursor over that underlined portion of the text and press the left button on the mouse, it will transport you to an entirely different site with relevant information that you can debate yourself over.
Also, assuming I was a lawyer, why would I try to prove that in any meaningful way? Do you not understand the concept of IANAL? Also, no such thing as a "law license" in the US. Also also, clarifying the first three sentences of a very basic wikipedia page is hardly "advice".
All SCOTUS did was confirm that a precedent set before Nixon still stands. This was confirmed once again by the courts during B Clintons terms. But confirming it yet again, for the third time since being set, is suddenly an affront to justice? They basically repeated themselves a third time. Then they kicked it back for the court to determine whether or not the act was official or not. Click a fucking link. Read a fucking book.
Or stay basic. IDGAS. You right now are no different in any way than trumpers who claim that trump's convictions were a show trial and that no one was injured by his acts. Bury your head in the sand and pretend to be incensed. Or, don't be afraid to have a little integrity. You'll get downvoted for posting something unpopular, and you'll have to deal with the occasional twat that's too lazy to check their facts. But I suppose that's the point of integrity. Doing the right thing with no expectation of reward. But the hubris of rubes can be its own reward. So thanks for that. 🙏