• Corigan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Jesus, how many years have the courts had to ponder if he is immune. At least 7? And you still don’t have a fucking answer and we still going to let him hold this shit up with the same old bullshit.

    Why doesn’t it go the other way. Sorry dude you don’t get in any ballots till you’re cleared of insurrection.

    Why don’t we rage and protest like the French ,why is it always so acceptable that those in power never face consequences…

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      46
      ·
      11 months ago

      The insurrection bit isn’t even up for debate, he has been found to be an insurrectionist. It is only if we are going to follow what the constitution plainly spells out, or find that Presidents are above the law and start the reign of Kings of The Former United States of America.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ah yes but you see they didn’t specifically write the word “President” in the Amendment, and SCOTUS ruled that the President isn’t an “officer” of the United States in a completely unrelated case with unrelated sections of law. So now we have to wait and see if SCOTUS is going to put the President above the law or not. And they almost assuredly aren’t going to do it before the Election. Which totally isn’t because they’re afraid of what happens if he still somehow wins after they rule against him…

        This unhinged semi satirical rant brought to you by staying up way too late.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          If the SCOTUS were to put President outside of the constitution like that, they have all but declared the office of President a King, and the 14th amendment has no barring on the office at that point anyways. And a King has no want for a “Supreme Court”, and would dismantle them as one of the first acts in power. A King dislikes and fears oversight, so really the Court is deciding if they will continue on, or if they and the whole US experiment is over.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, if we want to game theory this road (We shouldn’t, being that tired is an altered mental state but I love wild hypotheticals), Kings absolutely use courts to help maintain their legitimacy. So do dictators. As an example one of the things in Venezuela was packing the high court so they couldn’t protest the de-powering of the legislature. I do agree though if we ever get a fully immune president we’re screwed. Previous presidents agreed with that and subjected themselves to oversight, and even in one case, a speeding ticket.

            • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I was talking specifically the Supreme Court, as that would be the only court with more power than the President/King/Dictator. He would absolutely use all lower federal courts to bring the states in line, and prosecute anyone that threaten his power.

      • cmbabul@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If it does come to that point I think we’ll have a double feature of insurgencies and Balkanization

        • Corigan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          In Russia you do, or at least you pretend that the people are getting a choice through voting.