Topic: just to understand the Supreme Court's decision
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago#119,051
so, Trump (or any president) can officially rape, murder, and cannibalize a live human baby on TY, and they are immune from prosecution? help me understand this please.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,306,406
@previous (C)
So, anything he does basically, as long as he is in the White House acting as president. He could murder, rape, anything. The us now has a king, I guess. Great job, Republicans.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 41 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,306,412
@previous (A)
This goes beyond just Trump. Right now, we still have other systems in place that could lead to another impeachment. So, despite the unpredictability, Trump could still never see the White House or lose the White House.
All of this is a moot point, because the Supreme Court didn't appoint King Trump. They just appointed a King. So, this also applies for Biden, or anyone else who ascends to the throne.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,463
@previous (E)
That's the intended use, but in practice it's a naughty list for bad little Presidents who upset some folk in congress and then nothing happens after that. It becomes a footnote in American history
Anonymous G double-posted this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,482
@1,306,474 (C)
Are you referring to the recent Supreme Court decision? Impeachment and removal from office aren't criminal penalties, specifically for this reason. It's almost like the Supreme Court ruling is based upon something and this isn't LOL RANDOM 🤔
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,485
@1,306,463 (G)
That wasn't the case until the 90s when the GOP wanted so desperately to make Clinton appear unfit for office that they bastardized the impeachment process. Prior to that, impeachment had weight and meaning. Because of that, people now see impeachment as just a way to say "I don't like this person" (see Biden impeachment inquiry).
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,508
@OP
It's more like papal infallibility. That doesn't mean EVERYTHING Mr. Bergoglio says is infallible dogma, but rather applies in fairly narrow circumstances to some of his official duties as Pope.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,509
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
The president is the commander in chief of the armed forces. That means that literally anything he commands the armed forces to do is his "official" work. He could thus order them to, say, go to Los Angeles and shoot dead everyone they see, and he could not in any way get in any trouble.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,510
@previous (A)
You didn't complain when the COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES literally killed an American citizen, on purpose, with zero due process.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,519
@previous (A)
Does this apply for past presidents though?
Obama could still be put on trial because he's not president anymore and he was president prior to the decision.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,560
When democratic officials commit a crime, lets turn our heads and say it never happened. When a republican official commits a crime, let's hang the bastard, right Matt?
That's not how it works. There was a giant blurry question mark and now it's less blurry and less question mark shaped. The ruling provides an amount of clarity. Want more clarity? You'll have to try it on all the other instances of living Presidents who potentially committed criminal acts in an official capacity. I agree with Meta that Obama would be a good candidate for this.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,613
Based on the brand new ruling from the court, Biden is free to order the execution of Trump and every Republican member of the US Supreme Court. He just has to say it's an Official Executive Order. He probably can use Seal Team 6 because now such an order from the President is a Lawful Order.
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,614
@previous (K)
So are you. So is anyone. Luckily your authority would not be recognized, and unfortunately Biden's would. What would happen next? Biden would be expeditiously impeached, convicted, removed from office and then criminally prosecuted.
Anonymous K replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,615
@previous (G)
Impeached? Perhaps however if so it would be for following the new Court ruling.
Criminally prosecuted?????? Impossible based on the new court ruling.
US Presidents have now become Kings. Unlimited powers until impeachment.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,620
@1,306,613 (K)
If Democrats were in it to win it they would liberate the poor and downtrodden right now. Instead they will do nothing, and years from now claim they wanted to do things the right way and that's why we had project 2025 instead.
Anonymous E replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,306,623
@previous (G) > Biden couldn't sign one signature to save democracy and defeat poverty, because everyone on his team thought the supreme ruling meant something else. > We didn't know until Trump signed the executive order rounding up his political opponents that we realized!
> You have a flawed understanding of the ruling. Thanks
You said
>Biden would be expeditiously impeached, convicted, removed from office and then criminally prosecuted.
The court just said he cannot be criminally prosecuted as long as the act is an official act.
> Of course he can, he would simply need to be impeached and convicted of that charge before he could be criminally prosecuted
"The ruling expands presidential power by extending immunity from criminal prosecutions to former presidents for their official conduct. Never before had the Supreme Court considered whether a former commander in chief could face criminal charges as a result of conduct that occurred while in the Oval Office."