Funny, that's what I think about all the people clutching their pearls crying democracy is dead because of this ruling.
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don't you? You must have missed the part where it's only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
I have nothing to say to fascist pigs pretending to be judges.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
That's not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
Oh yeah so you'll believe the minority opinion but not the majority. Gotcha. No wonder you're confused.
That's not true whatsoever. Balant lie.
That's not true. The Constitution makes people of office take an oath to uphold it. You cannot commit crimes and say it was in an official capacity. That's the dumbest take in the world to think presidents can now commit all the crime they want.
Yes! You understand it now! SC could have defined official acts, but they said let the court decide what an official act is on a case by case basis. They ruled against Trump's favor.
And he's going to court for it, isn't he? Ya fuckin nob.
For God sakes, the president isn't immune to crime.
Then you are a fool and cannot be reasoned with. Clutch your pearls and shout to the sky your "democracy died in darkness". Troll.
The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:
Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.
Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.
Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.