CoffeeAddict,
CoffeeAddict avatar

The 3-0 ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed Mr. Trump a significant defeat, but was unlikely to be the final word on his claims of executive immunity. Mr. Trump is expected to continue his appeal to the Supreme Court — possibly with an intermediate request to the full appeals court.

It’s just so, so obvious that a President should not be above the law.

But, somehow Trump and his cohorts have convinced his followers that he (1) should be above the law, and (2) that it is a good thing he is above the law. It’s frightening.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court is rational, sets aside partisan politics, and states the obvious: the is not above the law.

MindSkipperBro12,

I don’t know, we always held presidents above the law. See FDR and tossing the Japanese Americans into camps, Nixon and Watergate, Reagan with the Iran-Contra deal, Bill Clinton and whatever sex scandals have been attributed to him, George Bush and lying about Iraq, and now Trump with 1/6.

Saying they aren’t would be going against precedent. We would really have to set up a second Constitutional Convention if we really want to overhaul the branches of government.

CoffeeAddict,
CoffeeAddict avatar

The question is novel because no former president until Mr. Trump had been indicted, so there was never an opportunity for a defendant to make — and courts to consider — the sweeping claim of executive immunity that he put forward.

I am not defending the crimes of past Presidents as I do not think they are defensible. (Of those listed, the internment camps make me especially sick).

But, I do think this case is novel because none of those presidents were actually indicted on their crimes and therefore never actually set a legal precedent as to whether they could abuse the Office of the President to skirt the law.

From the way I see it, it was always an ambiguous gray area and this case will change that. It will be the official, legal precedent.

The President will always have to make tough decisions, and some of them to be terrible. It is my opinion though that they should not be above the law.

JCPhoenix,
@JCPhoenix@beehaw.org avatar

I could see SCOTUS, as shit as they are, outright agreeing with the appeals court or just choosing not to hear the case and letting the decision stand (which I suppose is just “soft agreeing”). SCOTUS has crossed a lot of lines, but I feel like this is one line they’re not willing to cross and rightfully so.

Does this current decision cover the whole country? Or is this one of those things where Trump not having immunity only currently applies in this district, but it’s possible another district could (perplexingly) come to another conclusion?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • Neoliberal
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • GTA5RPClips
  • InstantRegret
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • kavyap
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • ethstaker
  • Durango
  • Backrooms
  • provamag3
  • osvaldo12
  • mdbf
  • cubers
  • everett
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • normalnudes
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines