No. Because they specifically said this is not the case.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.
They're essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations. The constitution outlines a handful of constitutional duties (such as pardoning) which are by definition the law not prosecutable. There's a presumption of immunity for their official acts. Anything they do outside of official acts is not immune.
Nothing has really changed. It's only made it more clear how difficult the process is to indict a president. The Fourth section of Article II still exists.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
So, let's say, not for the first time ever, a president orders an assassination and congress wants to hold them accountable for this action. It will need to be determined if this act was part of their official duties. The issue SCOTUS has presented is that it's very, very difficult for congress to obtain the motivation for such an act. Such a case would be dependent on the specific circumstances. I mean, if the president orders the assassination of a foreign leader, no one's going to, nor have the ever, question that. If they order the assassination of a congressional leader, don't imagine they're going to get away with that.
I'd like to know what has changed. My assumption is that it has always been legal given it was done for reasonable reasons (national security, etc). Are they claiming that now the president can kill anyone they wish with no reason whatsoever? Has this wholly removed the fourth section of Article II?
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I fully agree with you. This is now our reality. That doesn’t mean these hot takes barely based off of the first paragraph of the syllabus or one sentence of a dissenting opinion are more true.
When someone asks what’s a dead give away someone is a kid, it tells me they’re not old enough to remember the ASL days.
the constitution, which the Court just put the President above.
Are you joking?
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.
Also,
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
acts taken in office can’t even be used as evidence against him
They didn't say that. They said core acts are immune. These are defined in Article II. Perimeter acts, which will need judicial review to be determined, can be used as evidence.
the court creates absolute immunity for the president’s exercise of “core constitutional powers
Right here is where she's losing me. It's The Constitution. It is very much The Law above all laws. By definition, these acts, as defined in Article II, are immune from prosecution.
Roberts was very clear that the charges against Trump need to be reviewed to determine if they're "core" official acts or "perimeter" official acts. As I interpreted what Roberts said, there's no way Trump is getting away with everything.
It doesn't make it inadmissible. They have filed a claim that it's inadmissible. Now it needs to be reviewed.
These are clearly not official presidential actions. It won't hold up but it's going to be delayed forever.
Is it typical for a lawyer to, partly, build a case using things that happened after the person did what they were accused of doing?
Assuming this is fine and normal, this would mean they would need to first get judicial review to determine if the incidents they're citing are 'core' (Article II) official acts or not. Peripheral official acts, assuming a judge demes them to be, would certainly be admissible.
That is NOT what they have ruled. They have ruled that there is a presumptive immunity. That means it can be challenged upon judicial review.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
Roberts then goes on to explain how all but one of the charges need to go back to the courts to determine if he was acting in an official capacity.
POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.
SCOTUS majority has proven that they don’t care what’s written in the constitution
That's an odd take being that they're heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president's actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.
I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.
In the sense that the Constitution is above the law, yes.
The president is not obligated with protecting elections so that should not fall within absolute immunity. At best, the president appoints election-related officials and may pressure them to do something about an election, But acting unilaterally is not something a president is supposed to do. (In my opinion)
Edit: Having now read the syllabus and opinions a couple times, Roberts has stated what I have. It's up to judicial review to determine if what he's done is within his core duties or peripheral duties.
I'm super confident this guy will be found guilty of election interference. When is a much bigger unknown.
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I really don't know what she's going on about and I'm a little concerned.
As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There's a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.
So, from what I'm reading, this ruling hasn't really changed very much. It actually seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.
Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There's going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what "official acts" are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.
So, it's up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.
In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.
Also, FWIW, SCOTUS very clearly states in the middle of Page 8 "The President is not above the law."
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
If "maintaining the dignity of the office of President" is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.
This is a lie.
I really don't understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don't want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.
presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts,
This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It's the first "core" actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It's like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are "absolutely" immune from prosecution.
Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
This is 100% NOT TRUE.
I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.
Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.
the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.
For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.
The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.
Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I've been reading.
Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we've already presumed. The larger issue that's been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.
I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.
Does LL Bean typically run big?
I just received an order for a few shirts from LL Bean. Right now, any brand's Large is just a tad tight on me but I'm trying to lose weight and expect to squeeze in soon. These shirts are HUGE.
I double checked their website's fit guide. By all accounts, it's suggesting I'm a large (5'6" 43 chest). The long sleeve shirt is one size too big, the short sleeves are at least two sizes, if not three, too big. The sweat shirt is a bit large but wearable.
My plan at this point is to take the nearly two hour drive (with traffic) to my nearest store to try the shirts on in person. Just wondering if I got a weird batch or if I'm a size small in LL Bean.
Or, should I be expecting these to shrink a lot in the wash?
UPDATE: So, I drove the store and confirmed my suspicions with the associate. “Traditional Fit” is two sizes bigger, “Slim Fit” is one size bigger, and “Signature” is about right, he said. I didn’t like the signature sizing at all; it was oddly a little smocky and ballooned out at the bottom. And while the small traditional fit fit my width okay, I think it’s a little short, and I’m just 5’6”.
Can you create a shortcut to a Files folder?
I just submitted feedback to Apple because I was shocked that there was no apparent way to add a folder bookmark to the Home Screen. You can save a website to the Home Screen on iOS and created an alias on MacOS. So, I don't think this is something that's technically not possible to do nor a foreign concept for Apple.
Use case: I'm traveling and have all my documents in a folder in iCloud. Yes, you can set that folder as a favorite in Files but it would be more convenient, given. the hectic and stressful nature of traveling, to simply have access to that folder from the Home Screen.
Even better, now that I think about it, it would be great to have a Smart Folder so any document or email or booking confirmation or SMS or WhatsApp message, etc., that I tag in iCloud with "London" could easily be found from one spot on the Home Screen. Perhaps there's a future where we can ask Siri to show me all my documents and messages for my upcoming trip (not that I trust AI will ever be smart enough to figure this all out).
When / why / how did "I hope you are well" become a standard email intro?
Practically every email I've received in maybe the past year has started with "I hope you are well". I even had an LLM draft a placeholder email for me and it started with the same thing. This has not always been the case and it's strange to me that everyone I interact with begins their emails with this line. Frankly, it's annoying AF.
What gives? Who started this? Why has it become so prevalent? More importantly, how do we stop it?
While I'm at it, if you work in tech / customer support, I urge you to speak with your supervisors to minimize the boiler plate copy paste trash you insert into your emails. People dealing with shit that's not working as intended or desired do not have the mental or emotional capacity to wade through your platitudinal nonsense. Get to the fucking point.
Chinese migrants are fastest growing group crossing into U.S. from Mexico | 60 Minutes
Please watch the entire video before commenting.
The take away, in my opinion, was much less about the Chinese migrants than it was the story of the specific location they were coming through and how and why the process of legal immigration is broken. It seems so, so easy to fix this problem but it’s clear “the border” is being used as a political pawn to divide us for political gain.
One thing I'm going to miss is r/photomarket
The community around buying and selling gear and just watching awesome stuff pop up for sale regularly is one of the reasons I've stuck with the site for so long.
Other than FredMiranda, e$ay, Craigslist, I'm not sure what other options there are (I'm not on FB).
Is there any chance something like photomarket could pop up in the fediverse? What other sites are you trading on?
I was banned from one sub for posting a question in another.
This is a rant.
It stems from the recent Joe Rogan comment about Biden which turned out to be Trump. I'm an indie-leaning "progressive" who found this to be an important moment to call out for everyone.
The video, summarized: Joe Rogan is proved wrong when claiming Biden said "one of the problems about the Revolutionary War was that we didn't have enough airports". Rogan goes on, "If you had any other job, and you were talking like that, they'd go, 'you're done'". "It's just the media narrative..." Then the actual Biden video is pulled up for him showing that Biden is quoting Trump, "This is the same stable genius who said the biggest problem we had in the Revolutionary War was that we didn't have enough airports". "Is that fake?", Rogan says. Producer, "It's not fake, here's the video..." Trump, "our army manned the airports, it ran the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do." Rogan, "Oh, he fucked up.." His guest, "that's the thing about the media today, you gotta look into it."
My comment: >Is there a sub for instances like this where people say something about "the other side" only to be immediately shown that it was their "side" who said it? >This post is iconic should be pinned to the top of every social site.
Soon after, I received a message from r/JusticeServed (a sub I don't actively participate in) saying, >Hello, You have been permanently banned from participating in r/JusticeServed because you broke this community's rules. You won't be able to post or comment, but you can still view and subscribe to it. >Note from the moderators: >You have been banned for participating in a subreddit that has consistently shown to provide refuge for users to promote hate, violence and misinformation (joerogan). >This fully automated ban has been performed by a bot that cannot determine context. Appeals will be provided for good-faith users upon request. You can reply to this message and ask for an appeal. Any other messages will be ignored. More information on the appeal process here: https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/botbanned
My appeal did not include kind words. I called them out for being fascists and being part of the reason why Reddit has become a shithole. My appeal closed with asking not to be un-banned. Then I received this message,
>We are willing to reverse the ban only if you plan to stop supporting the target subreddit. Regardless of context, contributions you provide to the target subreddit is a material form of support. >Posting, Commenting, and Voting in a subreddit or on an item is a signal to Reddit and their advertisers that the participant believes that the community or comment or post has a legitimate reason for existing and serves a purpose for them. >There is no place for hate, violence and purposeful disinformation on Reddit. Those sub's advertisers should not be rewarded for the traffic metrics you and your peers provide to them by showing up and inflating those numbers. >They don't care what you say. They are just happy to have you continue to show up and refresh the page. >If this is something you can accept, to stop participating in the target subreddit, then please reply. If the bot hits you again for the same subreddit, you will not be unbanned a second time. >If you don't want to stop helping the target sub and their advertisers, then you can just ignore this message.
I responded, in part, with a full throated 'you can go fuck yourself'. This lead to a harassment warning from Reddit. I also noted the sub's 'motto' - "Too many times justice fails to prevail. These are not those times." For fucking real. I had also pointed out that what they're doing is analogous to DeSantis banning me from entering Florida just because I live in Philadelphia.
Dear JusticeServed, this is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I mean, this is the kind of shit that makes people more sympathetic to Musk and Rogan. I am not in support of nationalism or racism or misinformation. What I am in support of is common fucking sense.
It's very likely that had I maintained my composure I would have had a successful appeal. I didn't want to appeal to be unbanned though, I wanted to bring attention to their hypocrisy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/comments/10jxlfk/justiceserveds_2_million_subscriber_extravaganza/ >With the overturning of Roe v Wade, we saw a couple of subreddits pinning mod endorsed celebration threads. Why anyone would want to celebrate people losing rights is beyond me.
Rights? What rights are you supporting, JusticeServed? Certainly not Freedom of Speech. Spying on people and censoring them for actions they take in other communities sounds a lot like fascism to me.
The take away here is that we shouldn't put so much emotional weight on stupid shit like this that ultimately doesn't matter in our real lives. And in our real lives, we should be more cautious with judging people. Your current mood and state of mind can easily cause you to misinterpret someone else's words and (re)actions. We should all be more mindful to take a breath before reacting to something emotionally triggering. And, of course, fuck Reddit.
Unable to sign in to Lemmy.ml.
For well over a week, I've been unable to sign into Lemmy.ml with Lemmios. I'm not having an issue with other apps like Memmy.
How safe are grammar editing tools?
Without naming names, there's a well advertised grammar editing tool that's available either as an app download or browser extension. This is something I'd value for a number of reasons (good grammar is important!) but I'm super cautious about anything I'm giving permission to watch what I'm typing.
Ideally, I'd prefer to select text and have it analyzed on-demand using on-device intelligence. I'm on a Mac and it seems like Pages isn't cut out to check grammar. Also, there's no way in heck I'm paying $30 a month for a subscription.
Edit: I just want to acknowledge my request for something I'd value and then saying I don't want to pay for it. I would certainly pay for something if it met my needs but this function isn't something I'd personally value at $30 a month or any monthly subscription ($30 a year sounds reasonable). Moreover, if there's any suspicion of an application using my data for their own profit, they are not getting my money. So, in this case, for the sake of data privacy, I would prefer to pay for something (preferably once - grammar shouldn't need updating).
Queensryche - Revolution Calling
I was just watching some Headbangers Ball on Archive.org when the lyrics to this video by Queensryche struck me. I don't know that I ever heard this song before but I was around back then and recall plenty of "protest" / anti-government, anti-capitalist, anti-coldwar songs on the radio and MTV. It has me reflecting on the state of politics today and how things have shifted and twisted.
From 1988...
For a price I'd do about anything Except pull the trigger For that I'd need a pretty good cause Then I heard of Dr. X The man with the cure Just watch the television Yeah, you'll see there's something going on
Got no love for politicians Or that crazy scene in D.C. It's just a power mad town But the time is ripe for changes There's a growing feeling That taking a chance on a new kind of vision is due
I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through
I'm tired of all this bullshit They keep selling me on T.V. About the communist plan And all the shady preachers Begging for my cash Swiss bank accounts while giving their Secretaries the slam
They're all in Penthouse now Or Playboy magazine, million dollar stories to tell I guess Warhol wasn't wrong Fame fifteen minutes long Everyone's using everybody, making the sale
I used to think That only America's way, way was right But now the holy dollar rules everybody's lives Gotta make a million doesn't matter who dies
Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through
I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Revolution calling Revolution calling Revolution calling you Revolution calling Revolution calling Gotta make a change Gotta push, gotta push it on through
Native American Group Threatens National Boycott If Washington Football Team Doesn’t Change Name Back To ‘Redskins’ (The Daily Wire)
Gotta love the top comment, “If sincere, what a great move, and a great recognition of the need for preserving historical truth and solidarity.”
What are you doing to minimize your use of / dependency on Apple devices and other technologies?
This might be the wrong place to ask this question but, as someone who has owned more Apple products that I could count, I'm interested in reducing my dependency on them (and tech, in general) moving forward.
A significant portion of my life has included spending time and money on devices and applications to "make my life easier / more productive". It's becoming all too apparent though that this has created a reliance on technology that can become difficult to separate from if a company, such as Apple, makes changes that are displeasurable or disruptive to the habits I've adopted my daily life.
I mean, my bluetooth trackpad is acting wonky right now, so that's not fun. Wired always works. Is there too much technology?
I am not a fan of having to keep a phone on me at all times. It's always in silent mode and visual notifications are kept to a minimum. I can and do sometimes go two to three days without even knowing where my phone is. If I leave the house, I more often just take my Apple Watch and a note pad. (However, with the realization that Apple is changing the Watch UX with OS10, I'm not so sure I'll be using it much longer.)
I'll go through my phone once in a while and delete apps I rarely use. If I need something, I can easily reinstall it. The only things I really need a phone for are Maps for navigation, Safari to open a restaurant's menu, to manage my Apple Wallet, to get a Lyft, to view my Fitness / Health info, and to access an MFA Authenticator app.
After my Apple TV, my iPad is probably my most used device, closely followed by my Mac mini. (I have a MacBook for work - I don't consider that part of this conversation.) Thinking about it though, I could probably eliminate the iPad in favor of the desktop experience. Since there is not Finder replacement on iPad, I need a MacOS computer to mange my music, photos, files, etc. Although, I hate sitting at a desk more than I need to already for work. If MacOS Finder were available on an iPad, I might be able to ditch a desktop computer.
I just checked Screen Time on my phone - I'm averaging about 1 Hour / Week. My iPad is about 4 Hours / Week. Why do I even have these devices?
So, my problem is that I need(?) each of these devices for just a small handful of tasks. Stepping back from it, it feels stupid that I have all this crap. It's a lot of money spent and it's a lot of opportunity for something to break my daily habits. Although, speaking of habits, I have to admit I feel an addiction to these things that prevents me from getting rid of them.
Aren't we all addicted to out devices? Are we actively encouraging or reducing our dependency on technology and what affect does this have on our mental well being?
I'm wondering if anyone has taken steps to replace or eliminate devices or experiences. How are you living a minimalist technology life?
How are you managing your interaction with redundant communities?
For example, I'm on Lemmy.ml and I've joined [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. In this example, it's not very different from the number of similar groups on Flickr but, in comparison to Reddit, it seems like the decentralized platform can be a little unruly.
How are you going about joining different communities and managing your engagement? Are you only participating on the community on your instance? Are you joining and posting in as many instances that seem relevant?
I think you've got a bug with your 2FA notification.
When I followed the instructions shown when selecting "Set up 2-factor authentication", there's a pop-up that says to reload the page. When I did that I was immediately signed out and was unable to log back in without a 2FA key.
Click 'Save', then manually reload this page, scroll down and use the '2FA installation link' to obtain the oath URL for your authenticator.
I'm so thankful for this alternative.
I admit to spending too much time on Reddit during my work day as a distraction. It's a problem. What's worse is that Reddit has become so full of uninteresting content that I spend most of my time downvoting things that aren't at all relevant to the sub they're posted in. And with a lot of the front page subs being offline, the experience is dreadfully worse.
Reddit is barely any different from any other social media platform now. People just want to argue for the sake of arguing and getting hive mind support without any interest in the relevance or context of the original post (ie., no one reads the articles). Reddit has an algorithm just like any other social media platform to push engaging content to the top so they can get more ad revenue. I've been saying it for years now, Reddit is trash. But damn is it addictive.
I'm thankful for Lemmy and KBin and Mastodon (and my RSS reader) for providing interesting, relevant, chronologically posted content with a minimal amount of dilution. I don't spend as much time here but it serves the purpose of informing and entertaining me for a five minute work break without the frustration of "being social media".