SCOTUS writeup for anyone interested:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

The twitterverse and "read-it" crowd sure are riled up over this. so much so they may even bother to vote.

People are legit calling for Bogus Joe to drone strike trump to save america. most of them want the scotus judges taken out too.

its pretty comical given this isn't some wild shift in law, for a few reasons:

1. no sitting president has ever been indicted
2. no former president has ever been indicted
2a. Ford pardoned nixon, closest the US ever came
2b. Clinton beat impeachment, avoided perjury
2c. Trump beat impeachment
3. impeachment still exists as the only real way to remove a president


so these idiots want biden to cap trump. biden gets impeached and removed, the dems lose 10 elections in a row, and the scotus goes even more red.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 2 2024 08:41am

I mean moving beyond the part where SCOTUS just ruled basically exactly what I said on this subject when it first came up, I'd like to elaborate on the silly points of it


The whole point of impeachment existing is to be the safety valve for an executive run amok. The founding fathers never considered anything about personal criminal liability because 1) you assume the president to be the most trusted person, after the country votes to say exactly that and 2) it does not matter to the balance of political power. Locking up political opponents isn't supposed to be a way to move the dial, impeachment is. And if a president gets impeached, why should we care about whether they go to prison or not? They're out of power. Its one man. The whole idea that a deranged president could 'order seal team six to kill a rival', an example that sotomayor unironically used in her tantrum, is profoundly short sighted. Why all this myopic focus on personal political fortunes? A president carries the nuclear football, he could do a lot god damned worse than killing one person. He could easily start a war. We're supposed to impeach presidents before they reach that point, and if they are starting a war but the representatives of the majority of the people of the country support that president and won't impeach him, then that's just a democratic argument for war. That's a consequence of being a representative democracy, electing someone with the power to start wars, electing people with the power to stop it, and both branches aligning means the people have spoken.

And besides the paradox of a sitting president in charged of executing the laws being in charge of enforcing those laws against himself, its also just violating the separation of powers. Any court trying to declare criminal the exercise of official power by a president is de facto usurping those powers, because the court has now instituted itself as an the arbiter of how those powers are used. It has taken those powers out of the president's hands and given it to themselves. Likewise the court cannot possibly judge the counselling or motives of a president, because then it has become arbiter of the president's very deliberative process, the court deciding how the president is allowed to think, the values he must hold, the choices he can't even consider. At that point they're not just usurping the president's powers, they're taking the whole office

What really stuck out about this ruling is how three liberal justices would be willing to embrace some absolutely looney tunes unworkable political theory just because it serves partisan interests and then disrespect the court in their bitter dissent- even when it flies completely at odds with their supposed judicial philosophies of deference and unaccountability for the exercise of executive powers that they've shown for decades. How can you argue Obama could refuse to see immigration laws faithfully executed and nobody can challenge him on it? It shows the schizophrenia of a judiciary not rooted in any coherent philosophy. They'll expand the power of the executive to act unilaterally and unaccountably at every turn, then say that when democratic radicals try to persecute Trump for naked political ambitions that the president can't take a piss unless nine justices hold his dick.

I think we need more ways to punish presidents other than impeachment. We need better ways to show our anger and to punish bad presidents who did a poor job. The impeachment process is not something regular people have any meaningful control over. We need something more accessible to us.

have you tried voting every 4 years

Voting out a bad president is not punishment lol

This post was edited by JessiWan on Jul 2 2024 09:59am

I suggest darts thrown from above, at the offending president, who's locked into a handball court.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 2 2024 10:18am

fuckin lol

Whatever it is a good or a bad decision, the simple existence of such a level of politicized justice is broken.

this post is pretty ironic.

political people wanted the courts to take out trump, for political reasons, because they failed to do so politically.

the court basically said "you have political ways to unseat a president, leave the courts out of it".

and your takeaway is that the courts are too political.