Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling in Trump v United States granted Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity changes fundamentally the dynamics of the Oval Office. This decision shields a sitting president from legal accountability for official acts, enabling unlawful behavior without consequence.
Critics, including Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this ruling provides a “how-to guide” for presidential lawbreaking.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, solidified by Trump’s three appointees, has previously overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, with this immunity ruling, further consolidates presidential power. If Trump is re-elected, this immunity could embolden him to pursue aggressive policies without fear of legal repercussions, raising concerns about unchecked executive authority and the erosion of democratic checks and balances.
That’s literally his fucking goal. So much wishy washy bullshit language “could.” How about will.
When people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.
Have you seen SCOTUS? Has. And wholly enabled by the GOP, when McConnell was Speaker.
Fuck all of them.
Actively blocking appointments from one party then packing it full of another party. The blame doesn’t lie solely with Trump. All of these headlines are disingenuous for so many reasons it makes me nauseous.
scotus should be 5-4 the other way, if not for that fuckface hypocrite moscow mitch.
And he sat a ton of federal judges…I mean it will get worse, but this ship has basically sailed.
If Trump wins, RFK, jr will be in charge of healthcare. Bobby is anti-vax. If you want ANY vaccinations – if Trump wins (or otherwise games the system for a win through lawsuits, etc.) – you better get them before Jan 20, 2025, otherwise, you might need to go to Canada/Mexico just to get a vaccination.
Similarly, with the Trump Tariffs, you better buy any tech shit you need now, or it will become impossibly unaffordable.
He has taken control of the supreme court in this first term and in his next he will finish the job for all courts he has access to. If it is an official act he can do it without fear of prosecution .
So why won’t Biden use this power to do anything? He’s not even running for reelection so he doesn’t have anything to lose.
Because the power in question is the ability to nominate judges; and if Biden were to push through with any form of reform the GOP would make such a meal of it in the media that it would all but guarantee a Trump victory.
Best chance would be to keep mum, and hope that Kamala scrapes out a decisive victory and push through reforms as a lame duck president.
I thought the power in question was immunity from prosecution for “official acts”.
He’s halfway there already.
I’ve been in Spain the past few weeks. Barcelona is a literal paradise of art, architecture, amazing food, and the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen. Just sayin.
Dude stop objectifying women as though we’re artworks intended for your gaze. It’s kinda gross and pathetic.
Don’t worry he probably wasn’t talking about you.
No shit dickhead, I’m not Spanish. I’m just asking men on Lemmy to be normal about women, which, I get it, for sweaty nerds on the internet is a tall ask.
Is normal the same as common sense? If you want to respect mens bodies too, they tend to be attracted to women visually.
Why dont you just let men be normal about women alright?
Hey, well I am a huge nerd. But I’m mostly sweaty after a workout, and if someone wants to objectify me sometimes, I’m pretty ok with that.
You are right, I apologize sincerely. But godamn everything and everyone here is just so pretty. The men too.
If he said the same about men, would you still have a similar outrage? Genuine question, I’m not trying to put you down.
Could have been a woman and not a dude too.
Nah, I’m a dude. And I understand how it’s objectifying.
Its not objectifying because pretty women make you feel good by seeing them in public.
Did you do something wrong? Are you supposed to avoid looking at people in public? What if you said all the women were dressed in fun outfits, is that different?
Its not like you said they were there for your pleasure or something, it was a simple report of the things you liked about a location.
Probably, if perhaps to a lesser degree given the difference in cultural context. What is the purpose of your question?
Could? That’s an understatement if the year
If we don’t shut the barn door, the horse could get out.
If Trump wins our democracy is over. The way to stop this is to Vote Blue!
He already has the highest court in the land to hand him the presidency
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Search topics on Ground.News
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/nov/02/trump-immunity-election-supreme-court
