“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

  • JasonDJ
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    5 months ago

    He doesn’t. Impeaching judges is the House’s job.

    You know your house rep is up for election this year?

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah but now he’s above the law, so I say do it anyway and overturn the ruling his damn self.

      • madjo@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        It sets precedents that you might not want, because if Trump or one of his cronies get into the oval office, they can do the same thing.

          • JasonDJ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            I think the problem is, if Dems do it first, they’re not better than the Republicans.

            Unilateral dictatorships are unilateral dictatorships no matter who does it.

            You can’t win in a game where one side insists on cheating and one side insists on following the rules. Our system of governance wasn’t designed for this level of factionhood. It should and could’ve been stopped the right way maybe 20 or 30 years ago. At the least, 8 years ago. And the very last chance was when Trump’s second impeachment made it to the Senate.

            But now, there’s no chance.

            It’s not even really “cheating” that the Republicans are doing. Most everything is getting a “legal” stamp of approval. Just in a shady way that clearly and defiantly goes against everything this country has ever been about.

            Hey I know another politician who was pretty popular for his time that did the same thing. Bright young man with a funny mustache.

        • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          OH MY FUCKING GOD WHY DONT YOU FUCKING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL ALREADY FUCKING DO THAT!!! THEY DO NOT NEED OR EVEN WANT DEMOCRAT PERMISSION OR PRECEDENT!!! Goddamn a you fucking milquetoast losers who defended free speech for Nazis all this time and got us in this fucking predicament!! You NEVER understand who you’re dealing with!!

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If Trump gets back into office, it’s game over, unless the people are willing to fight a civil war to stop him. Though even that will probably be too little too late because of the power vacuum it will likely create on the world stage when WWIII already looks possible in the next decade.

          It might already be too late because I agree that Biden pushing his weight around with these new lack of presidential limits would get messy. But the cat is out of the bag right now and it’s not going to go quietly back in.

    • Madison420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Legally … but the law doesn’t apply to the president so long as they’re doing it for a reason they believe to be official.

      • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        The ruling more or less explicitly states that Biden could go on national television, say “Won’t someone rid me of these troublesome justices?”, have them assassinated, and face no legal repercussions because using the bully pulpit is covered by presidential immunity

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Farther. He could use the military or any branch of government to kill them and still get immunity. We now have a long, don’t get me wrong we always had some assumption that that’s how it went but seeing it on paper is an eye opener.

          Hell, he could sign literally every US asset over to anyone he pleases and there’s nothing we could do via a legal means. It’s not supposed to work that way but if no law constrains the office then the office is simply free to do literally whatever they want.

      • Akuden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        The law applies to the president always.

        Here is what this ruling is for -

        First - if I order an enemy of the US dead I can be prosecuted.

        The president orders an enemy dead. That enemy is killed. The president cannot be prosecuted for that act.

        What this ruling does - the president may also not be prosecuted for that act after they leave office.

        That’s all this does. That’s it. If the president kills a maid in the White House he or she will go to prison because that is against the law and not within the duties of the office.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It doesnt.

          Nope.

          Agreed.

          No or means they can’t be prosecuted for it ever so long as it was under the guise of an official act.

          Nope, that maid was a spy and deserved what she got.