Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)CH
chuckleslord @lemmy.world
Posts 4
Comments 827
Time travel rule
  • Trinity... the person named after the triple-single Christian God... isn't supposed to be the same person as the Jesus allegory? And in the 4th movie, they even made it so that they each got half of the powers of The One. Yeah, I think a rewatch might be in order.

    Edit: sorry if this comes off as snobbish. I'm neurodivergent and this is my humor, not an attack

  • Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
  • Hi! I'm a real big dumb dumb, cause I never, ya know, studied law. But I sure do know that with SCOTUS decisions, the dissenting should be read as well, to get the proper context of the decision that the opinion won't state. Sotomayor sums up the majority decision like this, and she's a damn sight more knowledgeable than I could ever be:

    The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence con- cerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.

    You should really read it, it's such an important read.

    PS: Sorry for formatting, it's copied verbatim from the dissenting pdf

  • Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
  • They gave it absolute immunity. That means there is no way to appeal, to argue, to halt, stop, or sue any act by a president. Even arguing whether or not the act is official would be a type of qualified immunity. Meaning that, if you are the office holder of president, everything you do has carte blanche, de facto legality. Sure, some future court could devise a test for this official vs unofficial distinction, but it means nothing for the near future. Biden is now a monarch with no legal method of stopping whatever he wishes to do, so long as it doesn't explicitly fall outside of the extremely broad powers of the executive as defined by SCOTUS and the constitution. Likewise with any future officer holder.

  • It’s an Authoritarian Police State, but You Voted
  • Why would you choose to live in a failing empire

    Last I checked, it's not much of a choice. You either have enough money and resources to fight your way to some other country, which is probably not further behind the US, or you don't, because you likely don't. Blaming victims is bullshit. Fact is, America is the third most populous country in the world and not even a sizable amount of them could reasonably leave.

    Check your privilege, ffs

  • Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
  • No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.