this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024

39 points (89.8% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36107 readers

1140 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

What is the likely outcome of the presidential immunity argument currently being used in courts? (self.nostupidquestions)

submitted 11 months ago by qooqie to c/nostupidquestions

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 62 points 11 months ago

It's absolutely ludicrous to think that a president should be immune legally for everything they do as a President.

Honestly, at that point Joe should just pull a gun and shoot him during a debate... Immunity, right?

That's not how any of this should work. The courts better figure this shit out properly, or the nation is done for.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If Trump won, it would mean Joe Biden could declare himself president for life, since his presidential immunity would protect him from any consequences of ignoring elections.

[–] dhork 26 points 11 months ago

I'd be on board with proclaiming Biden President for Life, it's probably only a two or three years term at most

[–] Archpawn 7 points 11 months ago

It would mean he couldn't be punished for it. It wouldn't mean his attempt at taking over the country would be successful. That said, we want to make it so there's an actual punishment for that so presidents don't just keep trying.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 11 months ago

It's not outlandish enough to have his attorneys sanctioned for making a frivolous argument, but only because criminal defendants are allowed to grasp at straws. It's a deeply unserious argument with no textual or historical support and isn't going to pass muster among even the worst judges. It's not even going to meaningfully delay his trial. It's just fodder for his political supporters so he can pretend that he isn't a criminal because apparently l’etat, c’est moi.

[–] someguy3 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That there is no such thing as presidential immunity.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Footnote: one-time exception for this specific case, and doesn't set precedent. Just like Bush v Gore.

[–] Aqarius 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

How the hell is that allowable as a ruling? "Wouldn't it be crazy if we made it legal - just kiddin haha - unless..."?

[–] Archpawn 1 points 11 months ago

The Supreme Court decides what's allowed.

[–] givesomefucks 20 points 11 months ago

It won't work

trumps stalling and hoping he can win and then claim it as president.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I can't answer the question directly, but this page (est 10 minutes read) puts into context how well that line of argument has been received in the courts so far: https://terikanefield.com/absoluteimmunity/

While not impossible, it would certainly up-end a fair amount of constitutional jurisprudence to accept the idea that there might be someone above the law.

[–] qooqie 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interesting read. So essentially he’s using it knowing it is a frivolous claim to allow him to circumnavigate normal courtroom proceedings?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's more that this claim of immunity causes a pause in the proceedings. My understanding is that there are many ways to pause different sorts of proceedings, such as insanity in a criminal trial and bankruptcy in a civil trial. In these two cases, though, once the issue has passed, the trial starts again where it was.

However, for pauses caused by claims of immunity or anti-SLAPP hearings, the result of those hearings could cause the trial to become moot, meaning the proceeding would immediately end. And that's why there's a pause in the first place.

In that sense, there is no circumnavigation because if immunity does apply, the trial wouldn't matter. And if it doesn't apply, the trial would proceed. Judicially, there is no drawback, but politically, burning down the clock may be a goal of the defense, as the primary and general elections draw closer.

It is very tempting to dismiss seemingly frivolous issues out of hand, and the judge could have done that. But presidential immunity has been a gray legal area -- see Nixon presidency -- such that judicial confidence isn't fully established. In a way, the judge is saying "ok, show me what you've got" knowing that proof of immunity is an uphill battle, waiting for the defense to fall flat.