Neoliberal

62 readers

1 users here now

Free trade, open borders, taco trucks on every corner. Latest discussion thread: April 2024 **We in m/Neoliberal support:** - Free trade and competitive markets

Immigration
YIMBYism – ‘yes in my backyard’-ism
Carbon taxes
Internationalism and supranational governance – e.g. the EU, UN, NATO, IMF
LGBTQ+ rights
Democracy, human rights, civil liberties and due process Neoliberals can be found in many political parties and we are not dogmatic supporters of specific parties. But we tend to find ourselves agreeing more often with parties that espouse liberal values, internationalism and centrist economics, such as the Democrats in the US, Liberal Democrats in the UK, FDP in Germany, Renaissance/MoDem in France, the Liberal Party in Canada, and so on. **Further reading** - I’m a neoliberal. Maybe you are too.
The neoliberal mind
Neo-liberalism and its prospects
Neoliberalism: the genesis of a political swear word **News sources** Here are some suggested news sources that we like and tend to find reliable. Please note that posts and threads are not at all limited to these sources! - The Economist https://www.economist.com/
Financial Times https://www.ft.com/
The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/
New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/
The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/world/
The New European https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/
Vox https://www.vox.com/

founded 2 years ago

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Claim of Absolute Immunity (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The ruling answered a question that an appeals court had never addressed: Can former presidents escape being held accountable by the criminal justice system for things they did while in office?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MindSkipperBro12 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know, we always held presidents above the law. See FDR and tossing the Japanese Americans into camps, Nixon and Watergate, Reagan with the Iran-Contra deal, Bill Clinton and whatever sex scandals have been attributed to him, George Bush and lying about Iraq, and now Trump with 1/6.

Saying they aren’t would be going against precedent. We would really have to set up a second Constitutional Convention if we really want to overhaul the branches of government.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward.

I am not defending the crimes of past Presidents as I do not think they are defensible. (Of those listed, the internment camps make me especially sick).

But, I do think this case is novel because none of those presidents were actually indicted on their crimes and therefore never actually set a legal precedent as to whether they could abuse the Office of the President to skirt the law.

From the way I see it, it was always an ambiguous gray area and this case will change that. It will be the official, legal precedent.

The President will always have to make tough decisions, and some of them to be terrible. It is my opinion though that they should not be above the law.