Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.

So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.

I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?

  • atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I’m a bit bothered that people aren’t going to the web to read the ruling in full. They’re relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member’s statements and the media. I’m also disheartened at the number of people who don’t know their rights, don’t understand the government’s functions in society, and don’t understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don’t know what’s in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.

    It wasn’t that terribly long ago that we didn’t have presidential term limits. There’s absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.

    Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      The real problem isn’t what this does right now, it’s how vague and open it is to interpretation. Official acts aren’t described anywhere in it, and they’re explicitly allowing other courts to decide rather than call out things that are obviously wrong for someone with that much power to do. Rather than cracking the door and opening it when needed, they swung the door wide open, and it will be up to courts to close it later. That vagueness is the terrifying part, who knows what acts will be “justified” later.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        They aren’t though. They say in the document that they are the final word on what is within the scope of official acts. So it’s not even a separate regulating body purpose built for that. It’s lower courts making a decision and the SCOTUS deciding if it is right and wrong and having the final say.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          If you trust the courts, that works fine, but they have proven all year how the court is definitely partisan and corrupt now. The court shouldn’t swing in either direction - they should be only beholden to the constitution, and justices who take money are no longer just listening to the constitution

          • atrielienz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Yes. And to be clear I don’t think this is a good thing. I’m actually very much against the courts deciding the purview of what is lawful conduct for the president within his duties to the Constitution and what is not.

            • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yeah I see it as left open so it can swing either way depending on the election, and that worries me. As a kid I was naive, I thought we had the perfect uncorruptable government, and here we are proving even the nine people who are supposed to be the least corrupted people - are some of the most.

    • atx_aquarian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      This one, including all text from the justices (including dissents) is over a hundred pages. That’s doable for many people, though not all, and it should be important enough to prioritize for those who can. But I think this one falls into the category of sticking my head up a bull’s ass while most people will just see what the butcher has to say.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Reading even the first few pages would be preferable to the fear mongering and panic in my opinion. If you’re getting a pared down version from Cornell law, fine. If it’s coming from fox news or vox media, I don’t think that should be the end of anyone’s endeavours to understand what is going on.