|
Chris@lurkdusoleil.bsky.social |
There is also every reason to think that this court will expand Trump v. U.S in his second term to extend immunity to those doing his bidding. I.e., “Our holding in Trump v. U.S. demands that government officials be able to enact the will of the executive without fear of criminal proceedings.”
12 replies 72 reposts 348 likes
|
Warren Terra
@warrenterra.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Doesn't even need the courts. The president can direct Justice not to investigate or prosecute (technically the ruling says this might be illegal, but it gets a *presumption* of immunity and all evidence is inadmissible) or the president can issue pardons (absolutely immune even if sold openly).
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Scrob
@scrob.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Oh come on now. No one has ever argued they were "just following orders" when on trial for doing some supremely heinous, evil shit before!
0 replies 1 reposts 2 likes
|
@alexandergruchala.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Ah yes. The just-following-orders defense.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
vibeulator
@vibeulator.bsky.social
[ View ] |
There's also reason to believe that if the Republicans win in November, the *court* will be expanded to make a 9-3 majority that lasts another 40 years.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Rob Shearer
@r.v.cx
[ View ] |
Another route is that every time a president asks someone to do something, the request itself serves as an implicit pardon.
1 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
Mew
@humeancondition.bsky.social
[ View ] |
How could someone possibly say that the President has immunity for an giving an order but the person who folliws it does not? Doesn't pass the smell test, especially given the reasoning that the Prez got this immunity so he can act quickly and decisively without thinking of legal consequences.
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
7̷̕͡4́2̨6̷1̵7̶00͟͢0027̡ 🍉
@zhl.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Can we just skip to the part where fascist America is defeated by a coalition of allies? I estimate roughly 2040, maybe.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Will Rosecrans
@wrosecrans.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"The three branches being coequal, our finding of presidential immunity also confers me personally, head of the judicial branch, infinite absolute immunity. This will also apply to Congress whenever a Republican is Speaker."
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
Jane the Bane
@janethebane.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I mean, from a policy execution standpoint, it'd be insane not to. Remember, Hitler never had to repeal the Weimar Constitution. He just filled it with enough loopholes that he could do whatever he wanted.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Ham Elliot
@r0wdy.sk33t.expert
[ View ] |
They're basically annihilating the entire concept of judicial review. "This action you're taking is unconstitutional, but there's no penalty for it if you do so, or for the people who knowingly carry out unconstitutional acts"
2 replies 1 reposts 30 likes
|
DougofGabriola
@islandgardener.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So don’t give them the opportunity. Work your butt off and ensure he’s beaten by such numbers no amount of fuckery will help him. Then make sure the democrats actually investigate and impeach justices NEXT year not in 2028. Stay on them.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Hector Valdes
@valdeshe.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They won’t have to. The Trump DOJ is not going to charge them. And if Trump ever leaves office alive, he will pardon them first.
0 replies 0 reposts 23 likes