For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

  • stembolts@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s interesting that a “level-headed” comment is one in which bringing up the murder of a US president’s rival is not an unexpected topic.

    If that is the new threshold for level-headed then this world has gone insane.

    • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Bringing it up is not unexpected since that has been some of the online fervor. It isn’t uncommon to talk about what people are saying.

      You’re arguing that the world has gone mad, which is true.

      • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        The assassination of political rivals by Seal Team 6 is what Trump’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court. They argued that anything the President orders is an official act, and immunity must apply to it (unless in their bad faith reading of the constitution he was impeached AND convicted by the Senate). But the court also said that if a President is immune, then by this new ruling the Presidents actions cannot be used in court, aka President is above the law without any check in place.

        • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is really the key device in the ruling. How are we going to let judges decide if their acts were or were not official if he has presumptive immunity for official acts and they aren’t even allowed to bring the evidence to court?! The ruling prevents the very review they are suggesting should happen in any case where the president argues he was discharging his official duties.