Law Supreme Court makes watergate legal? President now has near immunity

[Limbo Pete]

Man, I don’t know what has been up with the scotus the last few years. They have been making some very odd rulings that have shocked me. During my masters, I spent a lot of time reading and researching scotus rulings and I don’t think I can recall a particular scotus making so many big cases completely reversing previous rulings. For example, abortion. I also can’t believe they are allowing several states to require Christianity based learning in violation of church and state. Wtf?

They're just doing it because they can, dude

 

[nhbbear]

They're just doing it because they can, dude

Perhaps. Maybe because Thomas or others may be planning to retire soon? But for once, I kind of agree with the bitching from the left that the scotus has become way too political with nothing to check their rulings. Again, the abortion ruling and several others that are completely and unabashedly heavily right wing rulings

 

[Limbo Pete]

Perhaps. Maybe because Thomas or others may be planning to retire soon? But for once, I kind of agree with the bitching from the left that the scotus has become way too political with nothing to check their rulings. Again, the abortion ruling and several others that are completely and unabashedly heavily right wing rulings

Consider that the only thing which changed was the ideological makeup of the court. That's the long and short of it.

 

[Absolut]

You can officially bribe the president. Just call it a gratuity.

 

[no fat chicks]

I’m not sure what exactly the ramifications for this ruling are, but if it infuriates leftists then I support it 100%!

The modern right wing folks.
Fuck betterment of society and my fellow man, let's own teh libs!

 

[spamking]

It's not a matter of ignoring anything- we shouldn't even be having this conversation at all. We've never had an issue determining when the President is acting within the scope of their office. The one exception to that was Nixon who, based on what this ruling pretty plainly says and indicates, would skate today. Every single President in the history of this country has operated under criminal liability; carving out exceptions and creating a bubble of immunity serves to dramatically weaken those protections for no reason other than to do just that- weaken them.

And you guys are concerned that the line between a legit criminal act and "official duty" is too blurred as a result of this decision and will allow all Presidents to never be charged criminally for anything?

 

[nhbbear]

Consider that the only thing which changed was the ideological makeup of the court. That's the long and short of it.

It still shocks me how brazen they have become. I used to like Thomas’ rulings because he’s an originalist. Roberts was up there for me as well (in the current court) but Roberts being pretty moderate has pushed him into my fav current justice. Besides disagreeing with some current rulings (abortion, pharma ruling, this one, etc) I am afraid that the other side will try and pack the courts. I am right smack in the middle and hate the far right/left and this smacks of being far right and pretty damn crooked. Again, I have to wonder why the urgency.

I hate politics for the most part and in particular, rulings that favor the rich and powerful and the sackler ruling is just an example of doing the bidding for rich and powerful scumbags.

 

[emefer]

It still shocks me how brazen they have become. I used to like Thomas’ rulings because he’s an originalist. Roberts was up there for me as well (in the current court) but Roberts being pretty moderate has pushed him into my fav current justice. Besides disagreeing with some current rulings (abortion, pharma ruling, this one, etc) I am afraid that the other side will try and pack the courts. I am right smack in the middle and hate the far right/left and this smacks of being far right and pretty damn crooked. Again, I have to wonder why the urgency.

I hate politics for the most part and in particular, rulings that favor the rich and powerful and the sackler ruling is just an example of doing the bidding for rich and powerful scumbags.

They’ve been groomed to do this by the federalist society. It’s their calling.
And Mitch already packed the courts

 

[nostradumbass]

I've always been told that the reason for the second amendment is to stop America being taken over by a king. Apparently us stupid Brits are governed by an out of control monarch who forces us to pledge fealty to him and is above the law.

However, in the enlightened USA they are immune to this. If ever someone tried to take over and usurp the rule of law they would all take up arms against him.

This is why endless school shootings, drive-bys, suicides and police killings are a small price to pay in return for having an armed populace.

So come on 2nd Amendment fans, isn't this your time to shine? Isn't this what you've been waiting for?

Advocating murder is bannable on here, though I suspect you won't even be carded for it. You're obviously calling for somebody to be murdered but your post is so incoherent that it's hard to even tell whom. Are you asking people to murder the judges or the president, and what why would anybody do that?

Sounds like a mentally unwell attempt to shoehorn your disdain for the constitutional rights of a country you don't even live in.

 

[CatchnShoot]

lol... this Supreme court ruling doesn't make anything "legal/illegal" it just makes it impossible to prosecute.

This ruling says that the President can do as much crime as he wants while in office, and he won't face criminal charges... you know, like a King.

Moreover, if an ex president commits a crime once he's out of office, any planning/etc. that takes place while he/she is in office, can't be used in the prosecution of that crime.

It's an unlawful ruling IMO, and is in opposition of the constitution. Is Normal for THIS Scrotus. They have ruled against the constitution again and again.

 

[BFoe]

After reading more of what Roberts said it does seem pretty outlandish to offer an excuse for Trump's behavior as an official duty.

But wouldn't the actions of Trump mentioned be open to impeachment regardless?

You could still impeach a president, yeah. But a couple things are worth mentioning, both relevant to Trump but also just in general.

What if crimes that a POTUS commits only come to light after their term is over? What recourse is there then? This came up with Trump: firstly, while he was impeached (and acquitted) for Jan 6, he was already out of office by the time the trial started. And at the time, we thought Jan 6 was sort of the “main event”; but really, the fake elector scheme was the main event, and we didn’t learn about that until after.

I also have some concerns about how a party might allow illegal actions as long as they benefit. What if a POTUS does terribly criminal things, but has a party so loyal—or who benefits from his crimes—that they simply refuse to impeach and convict no matter what? Now, we may say that’s their right politically—but shouldn’t there be a remedy in the criminal justice system for those who were wronged?
That’s kind of my issue with impeachment: it’s a political remedy, but isn’t really justice when serious crimes are committed.

I was happy to see that SCOTUS answered the question of whether a president had to be impeached and removed before they were charged, and SCOTUS said they didn’t. That’s…something, I guess.

 

[Sinister]

It still shocks me how brazen they have become. I used to like Thomas’ rulings because he’s an originalist. Roberts was up there for me as well (in the current court) but Roberts being pretty moderate has pushed him into my fav current justice. Besides disagreeing with some current rulings (abortion, pharma ruling, this one, etc) I am afraid that the other side will try and pack the courts. I am right smack in the middle and hate the far right/left and this smacks of being far right and pretty damn crooked. Again, I have to wonder why the urgency.

I hate politics for the most part and in particular, rulings that favor the rich and powerful and the sackler ruling is just an example of doing the bidding for rich and powerful scumbags.

Let's differentiate between "packing" the Court, and balancing the Court. This Court is and was blatantly packed. This is the result of a packed Court. Most on the left arent going to advocate vengeance politics, despite the constant screaming about it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And you guys are concerned that the line between a legit criminal act and "official duty" is too blurred as a result of this decision and will allow all Presidents to never be charged criminally for anything?

Partly that, and partly even if theoretically they could be charged, it's going to be impossible to actually make a case against them.

It's crazy to me that it's now a mainstream Republican position that presidents have to be allowed to commit crimes to do their jobs. Instead of just getting rid of one crook, they have to change their whole ideology.

 

[Soggust]

Partly that, and partly even if theoretically they could be charged, it's going to be impossible to actually make a case against them.

It's crazy to me that it's now a mainstream Republican position that presidents have to be allowed to commit crimes to do their jobs. Instead of just getting rid of one crook, they have to change their whole ideology.

Really like this take (republican shot aside).

Like, even if we would have gotten rid of a bunch of crooks across both parties in hindsight, why do we have to have a president committing crimes lol?

If Bill Clinton went to Lolita island and met with the King of England, I still think he should be held accountable for diddling kids, even if it was during the presidency and they talked about business.

 

[PBAC]

Can't believe how badly both sides are misinterpreting this decision.

 

[Rob Battisti]

While we have had our disagreements, I am on vehement agreement with this notion. The SCOTUS perceives literally zero threat to their ability to grant or remove power. This is something I use in conversations in person with people who disagree with me on certain social issues, that they need to be cognizant of supporting outright authoritarianism.

Mitch McConnell specifically said to get the Country you desire you must capture and mold the Courts, which was something the Federalist Society dedicated its entire existence to, funded by the billionaire class who desire a more cemented underclass beneath them. To do this, you must remove power from the public (prosecution) and also from agencies that can act independently (the press, Comissioned agencies). I mentioned this before but in the early days of US Governance States started passing wildly progressive legislation for the day...like wanting to abolish slavery. Some of the men who were in power then realized what was coming, giving power to the people (direct democracy) would end up in the people voting for them to be less wealthy, via checks on the means to amass their wealth. I forget who it was recently that accused the Biden administration of "declaring War on crypto"...but if you even look at just one crypto scam, say Logan Paul's "Crypto Zoo"...that guy should be in prison and not parading around with WWE Titles.

The point is, if the public had say most of these robber barons would be in prison. That's HOW the legal system would be used. However now it's being used as asset protection for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Sugar, all of whom want the continuation of bad Neo-Liberal economics, deregulation, and a disarmed working class to combat them. They want Presidents (or a King, they dont care which) who will cement the oligarchy via promises of tax cuts, and a lack of enforcement of regs that exist to protect the public.

But the bottom line is about being RULED, not represented. The SCOTUS is rogue. These idealogs, again selected by a "Society" whose sole purpose was to convince people who otherwise would have gone into clergy to instead become lawyers and judges, are convinced they are our High Priests. As you said, they are appointed...and their friends in the Senate even blatantly rigged the appointment process by lying (McConmell lied about appointing justices during an election year right to America's face), which even further demonstrates that this is wielding power for sake of wielding power. And giving power for sake of giving power. This should boil the blood of any American who believes in opposing "taxation without representation"...any American who despises the idea of living under monarchy, any American who has EVER declared their opposition to being under the boot of wealthy elites. And yet here we are having our rights re-shaped and revoked largely by people who we know for a fact are showered with gifts by the donor class.

Making the courts even more political in an era where we’re already dumbing down everything is an insane position.

 

[nhbbear]

Let's differentiate between "packing" the Court, and balancing the Court. This Court is and was blatantly packed. This is the result of a packed Court. Most on the left arent going to advocate vengeance politics, despite the constant screaming about it.

I would prefer a more balanced court but adding more justices isn’t the way to go about it.

 

[nhbbear]

They’ve been groomed to do this by the federalist society. It’s their calling.
And Mitch already packed the courts

I wish the court was
More balanced but I don’t want to see them start adding justices to do so

 

[NickNick]

Can't believe how badly both sides are misinterpreting this decision.

I mean in less than 24 hours Trump is already showing up to all his court cases like

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I mean in less than 24 hours Trump is already showing up to all his court cases like

doesn't mean he's right.