4 ms·

Far more.

• EuAndreh 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • ilikehurdles 2y ago
    A. This is the dissent from Sotomayor, panned by pretty much every major legal figure. It is not a ruling, it is not binding, and it is not necessarily accurate. Just like, I don't know, listen to a Supreme Court podcast if you're not going to read the ruling [1]. B. That has nothing to do with the power of the Supreme Court relative to Brazil's. Our Supreme Court doesn't arrest people or order the military around. [1]: https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/trump-is-absolutely-immune-kind-of/ https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/trump-is-ab...
    • anigbrowl 2y ago
      It was not 'panned by pretty much every major legal figure'. And yes I read the whole opinion as well as the dissents.
      • Izkata 2y ago
        The immunity is for official duties in his role as president, which doesn't include those examples.
        • anigbrowl 2y ago
          And Sotomayor correctly pointed out that it's trivially easy to assert that any given action was an official duty, thereby gaining the benefit of presumptive immunity pending a court's detailed determination.
    • Izkata 2y ago
      Also C) such immunity can still be removed by impeachment.
      • anigbrowl 2y ago
        Sure, unless a whole political party is corrupted.
  • ineedaj0b 2y ago
    > When he (the president) uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. this is a quote from the dissenting opinion of Judge Sotomayor. the rest did not find that interpretation of the case true in their opinions.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      They didn’t find it false, either. They don’t contest the example.