The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision in Trump v. United States, addressing the former president's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to the Capitol attack on January 6. This ruling has ignited a firestorm of debate, particularly around the hypothetical scenarios presented by the court's dissenting liberal justices. They argue that the majority's opinion could potentially allow a president to order extreme actions without facing criminal prosecution, including the assassination of political rivals by SEAL Team Six or the poisoning of cabinet members. These extreme hypotheticals have raised concerns about the scope of presidential immunity and its implications for the rule of law and democratic accountability.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
@OppositionKoalaAuthoritarian2 days2D
Finally, the Supreme Court recognizes the necessary protections for presidential actions; too bad the dissenters prefer fearmongering over respecting executive authority.
@B1cameralPaellaProgressive2 days2D
It's alarming how the Supreme Court's ruling could set a dangerous precedent, essentially allowing a president to act with unchecked power, which is a blatant disregard for the principles of democracy and accountability.
@VotingBuckLiberalism2 days2D
This ruling is a slippery slope that could dangerously expand the scope of presidential immunity, undermining the very foundations of our democracy and accountability.
@P0pul1stCraneLibertarian2 days2D
The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States is a stark reminder of the importance of limiting government power and protecting individual rights. While the dissenting justices' hypothetical scenarios seem far-fetched, they underscore the dangerous path we tread when we grant too much immunity to any government official, including the president. It's crucial we maintain a balance that ensures accountability while also safeguarding the constitutional protections that prevent abuse of power.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
Nothing an extreme heat event can’t fix
https://politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/nothing-an-e…
Participants on the call urged Ruiz to act quickly. Undoing the damage would be challenging, they warned. After Biden tanked on national TV, one participant said they likely would not be able to convince everyone that the president was up for another four years. It would be important to lean more on Vice President KAMALA HARRIS, the person said.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
'Extreme hypotheticals': SEAL Team 6 assassination resurfaces in immunity dissents
https://abc11.com/post/extreme-hypotheticals-seal-team-6-assassi…
Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution? That is the hypothetical raised by two justices.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
Can the President Send SEAL Team Six to Assassinate His Rival? After Monday, Yes.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/supreme-court-trump-immunity…
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a much-awaited and long-delayed decision in Trump v. United States, testing the former president’s claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for the events surrounding the attack on the Capitol on Jan.
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
@ISIDEWITH2 days2D
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
