No, they can't. Even if the Supreme Court says they can, they can't.
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
77 points (98.7% liked)
politics
18883 readers
4081 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If they rule that a president is above the law, they are effectively creating a monarchy. All divine rights bestowed upon someone by virtue of existence.
Isn't this one of the big reasons americans defend their rights to bear arms? To prevent/remove a tyrannical government?
Yeah, ruling in the favour of this would be a massive Pandora's box and I'm not sure the supreme court would want that at that moment. If Trump were President they would probably agree though.
It's a litmus test of division. Will the people cheer on their own downfall and descend into fascism? Yes as long as their team is winning.
If no one ever faces any real consequences, then sure they can.
Unless a citizen is willing to enforce that notion upon him, the truth is that he can.
Considering that he was trying to stall his other trials until after the election, he did get away with this one.
Unfortunately, reality is proving that this is not the case.
Biden: “Remember when he was trying to deal with covid, he said just inject a little bleach in your veins? He missed it. It all went to his hair.”
He added: “I probably shouldn’t have said that.”
Well let's take a look at the cases he's involved in:
DC: Case is currently being stalled as the Supreme Court settles the question of Presidential immunity. The Supreme Court is poised to actually grant him at least a partial victory as it looks like they are going to grant him immunity for "official acts" and then send the case to the lower courts to determine what "official acts" even are. Under a best-case scenario, this would cause this trial to be delayed, most likely for several years, allowing Trump to avoid consequences due to the delay, his ability to have the cases dismissed if he wins in November, and/or simply running out the clock and dying of natural causes before a trial ever happens.
Florida: If the SC grants Trump full or partial immunity, the same thing will happen here. At best, the case will be delayed for several years while the courts sort out what is and isn't an "official act". Further, this case is being overseen by someone who has already been shown to be in Trump's back pocket, and there's a very high likelihood that she will just classify everything Trump did as an "official act" and just dismiss the case entirely. She has already repeatedly tipped her hand and made her desire to have this case dismissed with prejudice abundantly clear, and this would be the perfect opportunity for her to do that.
Georgia: Fani Willis has already done significant damage to this case and her reputation due to her inability or unwillingness to keep her personal and professional life separate. If Trump were to get his phone call, for example, classified as an "official act", it's most likely the case falls apart pretty quickly as that phone call is one of the cornerstones of the whole thing. This case is in danger on a number of levels beyond a potential SC ruling that could end up being the fatal blow.
New York: This is the least consequential of all of the cases he's facing. Nothing much really changes here; the entire premise of the case is on shaky legal ground that was going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court should Trump be found guilty anyway. And it seems that the judge -- just like all of the others before him -- has absolutely no appetite for holding Trump to account; he's refused to rule on not one but TEN gag order violations that Trump has already committed, so far refusing to even levy the paltry $10,000 fine that would be pocket change to Trump. There is no reason to believe that this judge would even be willing to impose any kind of significant punishment on him even if he were to be found guilty.
So while there's a possibility I could be wrong in my assessments of the case, at this point, I believe the answer to the question is yes. The President apparently really can get away with anything. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.
Everyone remember that whole part about never having a king? That the US had a president INSTEAD of a king?
Jesus.
Read the fucking Declaration of Independance into the case record.