this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
350 points (93.1% liked)

You Should Know

32979 readers
762 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity

Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from "official" actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed "unofiicial", no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad "official" presidential prerogatives.

Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.

There are probably other horrors I haven't considered yet.

Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don't know how much threat recognition matters here.

If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.

Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I think the most realistic way of undoing this ruling is for Biden to step down and Harris or someone else to take over. They would very likely win, and if the turnout is strong enough, they could use a legislative majority to either pack the courts or impeach/replace a few Republican Justices. The now majority liberal court could contrive some excuse to make a new ruling on presidential immunity and overturn the previous one.

It requires a lot of things to go fairly well and for the Democrats to be more organized and competent than they've ever been, but it is Possible, unlike a constitutional amendment imo.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Replacing the major candidate who already passed significant democratic legislation for 4 years is unlikely to result in greater Democratic faith or voter galvanization.

Harris certainly does not have that kind of momentum or support.

Any sort of candidate scramble now is all but forfeiting the 2024 election to trump.

Democrats already functionally control the Senate and have for biden's four presidential years; I can't see how nervously replacing Biden wins them any more seats, even optimistically.

That said, by the numbers, keeping the house majority and packing the court is more likely than a complete constitutional rewrite, a strategy I used as an example to show just how bleak the chance of restoring the us balance of executive power is.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He's polling worse than "generic Democrat" and he can barely form a coherent sentence. Fundamentally, I just don't believe there is a person who would vote for Biden, but not Harris or Whittmer or whoever, but there's lots of people who lack confidence in Biden and would be more likely to vote if someone else was nominated.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Presidential polls are absurd propaganda at this point, and I guess you're referring to the same two clips fox news hasn't stopped running since the debate rather than to his obvious first term track record of "being old and still reliably and actively passing progressive legislation".

He already won against trump, he regularly passes progressives legislation, you vote for Biden and get Harris anyway if you want a backup.

I can't imagine how abandoning a proven candidate who beat trump before inspires political confidence if you haven't been successfully manipulated to trust in the reliability of conservative media instead of years of reality.

[–] gh0stcassette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The leaked internal DNC poll is what I'm referencing here. Why would the poll conducted under the direct supervision of the DNC for their own personal use be exaggerating Biden's weakness?

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Likely the same reason you believe replacing a successful incumbent with "generic Democrat" is politically advantageous: manipulated faith in popular conservative media.