3 ms·
Earnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower
by interestpiqued 7mo ago
Earnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower courts to define the categories of official acts they laid out.
- bubblewand 7mo agoA hallmark of the Roberts court is leaving something technically intact, but practically gutted and dead. You can still technically bring charges against the president for things they do while in office. Practically speaking, after that ruling, you cannot, short of hypothetical scenarios so incredibly unlikely and egregious that even the incredibly unlikely and egregious acts of this administration don't meet that bar.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoAFAIK bringing charges in office had much less to do with that case. It was dismissed because he was elected president. Which seems more like a pacing problem for the prosecution. In office, they are the prosecutions boss. You’re never gonna be able to charge a sitting president. That’s what impeachment is for. Then you prosecute.
- watwut 7mo agoIt was pacing issue only because supreme court created lawless situation. The current state of things is literally their ideological project and work succeeding.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoThe initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.
- myko 7mo agothere is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents
- interestpiqued 7mo agoI never said the world was just. But that doesn’t mean the Supreme Courts decision was as blatantly ideological as everyone imagines. Thomas concurring opinion was blatantly ideological as all his opinions are