Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling in Trump v United States granted Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity changes fundamentally the dynamics of the Oval Office. This decision shields a sitting president from legal accountability for official acts, enabling unlawful behavior without consequence.

Critics, including Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this ruling provides a “how-to guide” for presidential lawbreaking.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, solidified by Trump’s three appointees, has previously overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, with this immunity ruling, further consolidates presidential power. If Trump is re-elected, this immunity could embolden him to pursue aggressive policies without fear of legal repercussions, raising concerns about unchecked executive authority and the erosion of democratic checks and balances.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s literally his fucking goal. So much wishy washy bullshit language “could.” How about will.

    When people tell you who they are, believe them the first time.

  • Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Have you seen SCOTUS? Has. And wholly enabled by the GOP, when McConnell was Speaker.

    Fuck all of them.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      2 days ago

      Actively blocking appointments from one party then packing it full of another party. The blame doesn’t lie solely with Trump. All of these headlines are disingenuous for so many reasons it makes me nauseous.

      • adarza@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        2 days ago

        scotus should be 5-4 the other way, if not for that fuckface hypocrite moscow mitch.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    So why won’t Biden use this power to do anything? He’s not even running for reelection so he doesn’t have anything to lose.

    • thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Because the power in question is the ability to nominate judges; and if Biden were to push through with any form of reform the GOP would make such a meal of it in the media that it would all but guarantee a Trump victory.

      Best chance would be to keep mum, and hope that Kamala scrapes out a decisive victory and push through reforms as a lame duck president.

  • TheOneWithTheHair@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    If Trump wins, RFK, jr will be in charge of healthcare. Bobby is anti-vax. If you want ANY vaccinations – if Trump wins (or otherwise games the system for a win through lawsuits, etc.) – you better get them before Jan 20, 2025, otherwise, you might need to go to Canada/Mexico just to get a vaccination.

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve been in Spain the past few weeks. Barcelona is a literal paradise of art, architecture, amazing food, and the most beautiful women I’ve ever seen. Just sayin.

        • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          No shit dickhead, I’m not Spanish. I’m just asking men on Lemmy to be normal about women, which, I get it, for sweaty nerds on the internet is a tall ask.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Is normal the same as common sense? If you want to respect mens bodies too, they tend to be attracted to women visually.

            Why dont you just let men be normal about women alright?

          • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Hey, well I am a huge nerd. But I’m mostly sweaty after a workout, and if someone wants to objectify me sometimes, I’m pretty ok with that.

      • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        If he said the same about men, would you still have a similar outrage? Genuine question, I’m not trying to put you down.

            • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Its not objectifying because pretty women make you feel good by seeing them in public.

              Did you do something wrong? Are you supposed to avoid looking at people in public? What if you said all the women were dressed in fun outfits, is that different?

              Its not like you said they were there for your pleasure or something, it was a simple report of the things you liked about a location.

        • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          2 days ago

          Probably, if perhaps to a lesser degree given the difference in cultural context. What is the purpose of your question?

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    He has taken control of the supreme court in this first term and in his next he will finish the job for all courts he has access to. If it is an official act he can do it without fear of prosecution .

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago
    The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for The Guardian:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
    Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/nov/02/trump-immunity-election-supreme-court

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support