• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    There are so many misinformed people on this ruling. It doesn’t give the President more executive authority, like a king. It lets him commit crime without personal responsibility if it’s an official act.

    Yes, it’s insane and deplorable, but it doesn’t mean Biden can do anything he wants.

    If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.

      “I have ordered the military to detain Donald Trump in a Federal max security prison and destroy all ballots marked with his name on election day. This is not a change in the laws of our great nation, this is just an act that I am ordering to be performed in my official capacity as POTUS. God bless America.”

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        And while he won’t face any charges himself the military will refuse to execute what is an obviously unlawful order.

          • azuth@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            If making up imaginary scenarios in your mind that have no chance of happening makes you feel better go for it my man.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              lmao, I mean, I don’t think it has any real chance of happening. But what stops it is Biden being Biden. If it were, say, a fascist in the Oval Office, the only question would be “Who do I ask to do this dirty work?”

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well, presidents can also leverage other actors to help them out. Quid pro quo, you might say.

      Unfortunately that really only tends to work in the favor of bad actors. There is no legitimate reason to have immunity for “good.”

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      It really doesn’t change much. Instead of just ignoring what presidents do that might be criminal, it’s explicitly immune.

      Also this ruling doesn’t grant further immunity to others. The president can order seal team 6 to kill someone, but they’d still face charges if it wasn’t plausibly a legitimate target.

      • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.

        It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

        • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Except the President has pardon power.

          Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

          How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.

          • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.

            • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I don’t understand what you mean. Even if he believed he had the right to retain the documents, he wasn’t willfully improperly keeping the documents or obstructing their retrieval until after he was out of office - you’d basically just have to not charge him regarding any documents he handed over the first time, because after the first time handing over documents he definitely knew better and definitely wasn’t in office.

              • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                Oh, I agree that it should be considered a crime. I’m just suggesting a way Cannon may leverage this in Trumps favor.

                Since there’s no requirement that the President needs to be actively in office for immunity, if she ruled that his ownership of the documents was an “official act,” then any crime he may have committed involving the documents could be considered in service of said act.

        • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Biden could also grant immunity to others in carrying out his potential illegal actions, like trump did. If you want to fanfiction this scenario