• Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32

    This is how fucked we are. Right here.

    Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.

    So nevermind all that evidence you have of them planning it out in the open. Inadmissible in trial!

    Get fucked Supreme Cunts.

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    And they’ve also argued that ordering assassinations of political rivals are official acts.

    So now Biden has the best opportunity of all time to clean and prevent the fascist right wing usurpation of the nation.

      • FireTower@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.

          • FireTower@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.

            • WanderingVentra@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.

              • FireTower@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.

                The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.

                Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.