For reference: Article 48 Wikipedia I’m trying to understand how anyone with any knowledge of the history of dictators could possibly justify granting a president unchecked “official” power so if anyone has any actual theories I am ALL ears.

  • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think this makes sense, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I don’t agree with some of the things I’ve seen online about having seal team six assassinate political rivals just because one uses the power of the office does not mean it is an official act of the office. That is where courts would decide which is true. Previously they were making the argument for absolute immunity for everything, the Supreme Court said that isn’t the case.

    I think there is trepidation because there aren’t precedents yet and this is happening in the context of January 6 and the big lie. I don’t think it ends Trump’s trouble, his speaking to the public that day was on the behalf of DJT, not the president. It gets more murky if someone questions not sending the national guard, was that an official act and just a bad call? The hope would be some sort of reasonable president standard is created but really who knows.

    • BmeBenji@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      5 months ago

      There is absolutely precedent for these exact events. Pick the name of a famous dictator from history out of a hat and they most likely have acquired absolute power through “legal” means.

      • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        What legal precedent is there in US courts for deciding if something is official or personal?

      • Icalasari@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, so many arguing that this isn’t a big deal are arguing based on good faith actors. The GoP and the majority of the SC are not good faith actors, so it would be easy to twist things and have the SC go, “Well if you squint, turn your head, and cross your eyes, it fits as an official act”

    • oxjox@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.

      • stembolts@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s interesting that a “level-headed” comment is one in which bringing up the murder of a US president’s rival is not an unexpected topic.

        If that is the new threshold for level-headed then this world has gone insane.

        • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 months ago

          Bringing it up is not unexpected since that has been some of the online fervor. It isn’t uncommon to talk about what people are saying.

          You’re arguing that the world has gone mad, which is true.

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            The assassination of political rivals by Seal Team 6 is what Trump’s lawyer argued before the Supreme Court. They argued that anything the President orders is an official act, and immunity must apply to it (unless in their bad faith reading of the constitution he was impeached AND convicted by the Senate). But the court also said that if a President is immune, then by this new ruling the Presidents actions cannot be used in court, aka President is above the law without any check in place.

            • MeetInPotatoes@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              5 months ago

              This is really the key device in the ruling. How are we going to let judges decide if their acts were or were not official if he has presumptive immunity for official acts and they aren’t even allowed to bring the evidence to court?! The ruling prevents the very review they are suggesting should happen in any case where the president argues he was discharging his official duties.