• TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        They’re making a bigger deal about it than it actually is

        If, however, the court’s decision frees future presidents to act in corrupt, even criminal ways, then the “rule for the ages” articulated in this opinion will have a major impact upon the separation of powers among the three branches of government, potentially giving far more power to the president than has been the case throughout American history. That will have huge implications for the functioning of the presidency and the stability, if not existence, of American democracy. source

        It’s a big deal. Of course Biden would rather talk about the case, it undermines the entire democracy. His age will continue to be a focus of the election, Republicans will not let it go.

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

          I’ve read a couple of the majority opinions and dissenter opinions

          The president already had presumptive immunity for official acts. This basically just reinforces the precedent and sets up a framework for determining official vs unofficial.

          Nothing about this ruling fundamentally changes Trump’s position except that he has the option of claiming he was “acting officially” for example during Jan 6th. Then it will go up to USSC and they will determine the specifics case by case

          Why does it not matter as much as it seems? Because a president already had presumptive immunity for official acts before.

          Yes, it’s important. But it’s not the end to democracy. It essentially creates a check against the executive branch by the judicial branch. And honestly, I’m OK with that considering how powerful the executive branch is.

          Biden’s campaigners don’t care about any of that. It’s their job to get people to vote. They don’t care about the truth. I get it, I would do the same thing in their position.

          Everybody talking about replacing you because of your terrible debate performance? Blast the “End to democracy” tagine as loud as you can so that news cycle changes.

          It worked like a charm, I think it was a good strategic move

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

            So what am I afraid of? I’m afraid of, first of all, that people don’t recognize what a big deal this is. This isn’t an adjustment in the law. This is a change in our entire constitutional system. It says that there is one of the three branches of government that cannot be checked by the other two.

            And I don’t think that people necessarily understand what that means. And all you have to do is look to any authoritarian country. Look, for example, right now in Hungary, where Viktor Orban is busily taking control of other countries’ companies that are within his country, because he can do that now. He’s not checked by the courts.

            Look at Vladimir Putin’s Russia, for example, where he can simply throw his people into the maw of a meat grinder in that war because they can’t say no. We have just — our Supreme Court has just done the same thing. source Heather Cox Richardson