This sounds like the conclusive, unspoken last step to Project 2025.
I’d be on the side of those not fighting for the establishment of a hideous Christ-nationalist autocracy.
I also volunteer @Tin-Man to enter the ranks. Wouldn’t want him to miss out on the prestige of advance party duty for something like this.
Another Inquisition? 
Oh, goodie-goodie! I do so hope the “Gatherers of the Unfaithful” decide to wear distinctive attire and emblems during their Crusade… (heading out to backyard to zero my rifle)…
… (whistling a little ditty while prepping my equipment)… Already on it, sir… (casual salute)…
This gal provides a short synopsis of Project 2025.
https://x.com/HackingButLegal/status/1811498050822836347
It’s genuinely terrible stuff, indeed.
I’d be surprised if the orange jagoff didn’t take more cues from groups like Heritage, should he win the election.
Look for my contribution to the ‘How to Resist the Republican Loyalty Enforcers’ underground instruction booklet should this occur.
He’s long been associated with The Heritage Foundation.
The presidents powers are still bound by the limits of the US constitution and common law. So the president has not become a king. Broad immunity does not permit criminality. I’m not American, but it seems people are wildly exaggerating this ruling.
Not really…
“The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while in office not only gives Donald Trump a free pass for his past crimes, but sets a dangerous precedent for all future presidents.”
That has removed any barrier to the way they exercise power. The law can’t touch them.
If one is granted immunity from prosecution for any crime whilst in office, then of course it permits criminality, with impunity?
I don’t think they are, but please explain how removing the threat of prosecution for any act whilst in office as president, helps stop sitting presidents from breaking the law? What’s left to stop them, a stern letter from Congress?
There may be some exaggeration, yes. However, trump and his cronies are likely to take their actions to the extreme and worry about the details in some far flung future. There’s plenty of evidence that he typically does whatever the fuck he pleases and then simply dodges being held accountable. He’s been doing that, successfully, all his life.
Given he already has multiple felony convictions, and has violated his oath of office to uphold the constitution, instead inciting a violent insurrection against it, when there were potential legal consequences, it should be deeply worrying to most people, what granting him immunity from prosecution is going lead to.
Most presidents, including the current one, would not abuse the immunity from prosecution granted by the Supreme Court, because most, deep down, are honorable and take the Constitution seriously. So in that respect, the consequences of the ruling can be considered to be exaggerated.
But then you have Trump, who has shown no signs of giving a flying fuck about anything except himself. He wouldn’t have any compunctions at all against using this immunity ruling to enrich himself and consolidate his power, all at the expense of everyone.
I’m not sure you are correct @sheldon. Immunity is granted for official presidential acts whether criminal or otherwise. Unofficial acts committed by the president are not immune.
Jack Smith has asked the court to go through the evidence regarding trumps attempt to overturn the election in order to decide that question. Judge Chunkin requested that she receive that evidence by Sept 26th. That process will mean that the public will see that evidence as well.
Ok, fair point, though I doubt the chances of criminality are reduced by offering this immunity. I am also suspicious that it might apply to other presidents, Obama’s administration saw a massive increase in drone attacks, that are coming under increasing international legal scrutiny.
Though you point is duly noted, thank you.
There are just as many corrupt cronies in the Biden administration, so this ruling would apply to anyone while holding the office of president. Why isn’t anyone scared of the Immunity and Powers that are now held by Biden? The fact this is not a talking point to me makes me assume that this is politically biased bullshit. Why aren’t people outraged by the Powers this would give to the sitting president, but their opposition is centered around Trump. Also, the dissenters are anti-Trump, and it seems they are very biased, and are throwing out hyperbole regarding the powers of the president. Trumps own appointees voted against certain measures he implemented, so it’s hard for me to regard the majority in favour as holding bias. I’m not American, so which president I’d prefer is based on the record or policies in foreign affairs, not domestic issues.
I’d imagine it’s because they know he has himself denounced it, and he’s not a career criminal, like the previous president, nor is he likely to violate his oath of office to try and hang on to power illegally, as the previous president did.
I’m not sure about the hyperbole, but yes most people here seem anti Trump, and are genuinely concerned about someone as obviously devoid of a moral or ethical compass as his actions suggest, might misuse immunity from prosecution, given he has shown little regard to the consequences of his illegal actions when prosecution was a possibility.
Donald Trump appointed more than 200 judges to the federal bench, including nearly as many powerful federal appeals court judges in four years, as Barack Obama appointed in eight.
Trump, worked closely with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans to reshape the federal judiciary – particularly the appeals courts – for decades to come. Since federal judges have lifetime tenure.
Trump appointed 3 supreme court judges, the most by a one-term president since Herbert Hoover (though Richard Nixon appointed four in his first four years in office).
More than a quarter of currently active federal judges are now Trump appointees.
The consequences can be seen in decision like the one that overturned Roe v Wade, and states that are now busy trampling women’s rights as a result.
Trump has vocally threatened to stop funding NATO, at a time of unprecedented aggression from Putin. He froze funding to the WHO, during a deadly global pandemic, just off the top of my head, but his foreign policies, such as they were seemed to focus on a virulent hatred for immigrants.
I am also not from the US, but am genuinely concerned that Trump might be re-elected, more so than I was the first time around, and for pretty obvious reasons.
Well, it appears you’ve not read the many pages of non-trump specific outrage concerning this ruling.
The difference between folks being up in arms about Trump misusing this vs Biden doing so is that Trump has demonstrated over and over his propensity for the misuse of the legal system and the office of President and has said, outright, he would engage in (imo) nefarious behavior if elected again. Biden has not done these things.
Trump ensured funding to NATO and international agreements by stating the US wouldn’t contribute unless they increased their contributions. There’s also nothing wrong about criticizing or even opposing NATO, it is possible to use other arrangements for security. Regardless, Trump was no worse on foreign affairs than the presidents before him. I’m not really pro or anti Trump, but I do believe there is significant hyperbole when he’s talked about, same could be said for Harris.
NATO was already funded?
As I said, he threatened to withdraw funding to NATO at a time of great international risk from Putin’s aggressive war on Ukraine. No one is suggesting a more equitable funding of NATO isn’t justified, but that is not the point.
What has this to do with the reckless actions of Trump in threatening to withdraw funding?
I am dubious, but that’s just Whataboutism.
I think it would be reasonable to say that his actions have warranted most of the criticisms and cynicism levelled at him here. You also seem to have ignored many of the reasons offered in my post? For the record I don’t adhere strongly to one side of the political spectrum, as I think ideas should be judged on their own merit, and not on which side of the political divide they come from. However I genuinely believe Trump to be an amoral opportunist, and a power mad megalomaniac, I think he is entirely unsuited to public office of any kind, let alone the Presidency, his policies aside.
That is only true if you consider his kissing up to dictators and snubbing our allies to be good foreign policy.
This perception of yours is probably similar to the perception of Trump that many undecided voters have. To wit, that Trump isn’t so bad. They tend to forget the complete chaos of his first term and the disasters that he had a direct hand in, including his mishandling of the Covid pandemic that resulted in hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and his attempt to retain power by challenging a fair election and inciting an insurrection. To me, this is not hyperbole–far from it.
