How does the SCOTUS ruling on presidential powers say what he can or what he can't do? Or can he basically do anything? Like kill a person or multiple people shooting a gun from the whitehouse?

Comments

• imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Yes, that’s fundamentally what the ruling means.

  The U.S. President can no longer be prosecuted for “presidential duties”, which can be defined arbitrarily according to the Constitution.

  source

  • Patnou@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So basically you are telling me that I can hold a press conference (presidential right or dutie) and tell the public or world that he is about to cheat on his wife with a 16 year old girl scout after this meeting? Almost like Wag The Dog alluded to.? And go one about her name her parents where they live and what their parents do?

    source

    • imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      If you’re the US president, yes, you can do all of that without legal repercussions.

      source
• JakenVeina@midwest.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  We talking about the one that says the President can’t be prosecuted for official acts?

  The thing most people miss about that decision is that it’s not a power grant to the Presidency. It’s a power grab by the Supreme Court. They conveniently don’t define what counts as an “official act” that the President can’t be prosecuted for, so that whenever it comes up again, we just end up right back at the Supreme Court for them to decide what’s “official” and what isn’t. And we know their game plan on that kinda thing, from everything else in the past decade, they’ll pull a bunch of old nonsense out of their ass to rule whichever way they please, and then say at the and “this decision is a unique outcome of unique circumstances” or whatever, so they’re free to rule completely differently next time.

  The charitable interpretation of the ruling is “the way to get a President to stop doing bad shit is for Congress to impeach them” so in theory, that’s still a check on Presidental power, but we all know how much Congress is loathe to use any amount of power to do anything, what little they haven’t abdicated already.

  source
• Malyca@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  He’s immune in total as long as it’s part of an “official act”. Deliberately vague.

  source
• rasterweb@fedia.io ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  TBF he’d probably lose a few supporters if he gunned down someone. Just a few though.

  source
• Proprietary_Blend@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Donald said something to that effect fitting the first go around

  source
• IWW4@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If POTUS ignores a SCOTUS then the Justice Department is tasked with taking action.

  Now whatever that is worth with this administration, let the games begin.

  If the POTUS actually gave a shit about the US or wasn’t a convicted felon 36 times over, they would make sure it never came to that.

  source

  • Patnou@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    If a normal Pres got in after him how could he setback or rollback the SCOTUS ruling so other Pres don’t end up like out current DOUCHE.

    source

    • SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      We tear the whole thing down and start fresh. Outside of that, nothing changes.

      source
    • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Short of impeaching the entire SCOTUS and running a do-over with justices that aren’t owned by a criminal (which would take not only the president, but the entirety of congress to pull off) there is no way to undo the SCOTUS ruling.

      source
    • IWW4@lemmy.zip ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      So the POTUS cant roll it back a SCOTUS ruling.

      The POTUS executes the ruling. Hence the word executive.

      What the next POTUS will do is have some agency’ s lawyers interpret the ruling and turn that into actions and or lines of business for the agency they are part of.

      source