If your argument is: the Supreme Court is compromised and will intentionally ignore the constitution and the laws to protect Trump- then what difference does this ruling make?

Why did the courts not hand the election to him? He sued in many courts over the 2020 election drama. Fake votes, rigged election, etc. He lost every court case.

I think people assume the 9 justices are politically motivated but they in general hold a deep respect for the laws and the constitution. Every single decision is documented and you can read their opinions. Everything has legal reasoning, nothing happens just because

For example the Roe v Wade one. I don’t think they should have repealed it for practical purposes- but the ruling legally makes sense. The courts are not legislators. Congress should be the one passing legislation to give right to abortion, not the courts.

Why did Congress not pass anything since 1974? There were many Democratic majorities since 1974.

I wouldn’t have repealed just because of the damage it caused, but I understand the legal argument.

So to summarize: they follow the law. Not necessarily what is best for the country

everything could be viewed as official in the right lens

No, isn’t true. Insider trading? Not official. Is a crime and can be prosecuted.

And note that it is “presumptive immunity” not absolute immunity. Therefore even official actions can be criminally prosecuted on a case by case basis. It’s just that because it’s presumptive, there’s a higher threshold of evidence the state would need to prosecute.

If president had immunity, why Nixon

Nixon did not act in an official capacity. He was guilty of obstruction of justice, breaking into office, etc. These things he did not do in an official capacity.

I think a better example would be the Iran Contra affair. I think that’s a very legitimate concern. If I order the CIA to do something - is it official? What if it’s something clearly against the laws and/or against interests of the USA? Here I think there is a valid concern although that doesn’t mean the ruling is the end of democracy like people are making it out to be

It’s OK to do insurrection

He can still be held criminally liable for the insurrection. He will argue he was acting officially, it will go to a lower court, then bubble up to the USSC and they will rule.

I think it’s fairly obvious it was not official

OK to use official employee

Yeah I think this is wrong and a valid concern. Although keep in mind: they already had this presumptive immunity. The difference is now the law is clearer and there’s a process to remove this immunity whereas before it wasn’t there

denying people who actually understand the law, like professors, etc

You can find just as many legal experts who agree with the majority opinion. It was 6-3 in the Supreme Court.

But again- appeal to authority doesn’t work. You make arguments, like you did in this comment. I respect you more than almost anyone else because you took the time to read and give reasoning

I don’t believe what someone says just because they’re an expert. I listen, but I look at the reasoning. Look up “Nobel disease” . Experts sometimes say some wild things

our Congress is deadlocked

Yes they are a mess and we’re headed towards fascism. Not because of this ruling though

Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first

_______continued…

my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?

moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”

Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible

essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.

It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action

they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”

so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so

to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be

why?

1. the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this

2. it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.

what this does is it gives the legislative branch [edit: judicial] a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general

now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.

however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.

this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward

now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation

Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should

and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.

so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts

so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?

Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”

It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.

So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers

So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”

Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.

As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.

Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.

The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”

So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.

So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two

the decision was ruled 6-3

so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor

Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President

They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.

the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples

The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.

self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand

The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”

i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”

a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.

this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him

The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents

well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html

that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence

so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president

the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement

Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”

essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.

they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities

therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution

my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.

however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.

then the dissenter goes on

Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.

essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument

Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.

Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.

Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.

Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.

So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.

It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?

I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)

It’s a question of

How much effort (man hours which ultimately translates to $$$) versus how much revenue lost (people not buying because of Firefox bugs)

In my experience this depends on your specific application. Sometimes there are weird bugs or behavior where you have to really hunt down what’s going on. Other times it’s as simple as changing a few css lines or something.

I view India as a rising power that has the potential to rival China and the USA. I think the culture is backwards in many ways and advanced in others. I don’t like your current administration, but I do think India overall has interesting politics. I mean, you guys have an active Maoist insurgency. Pretty wild for the 21st century.

I tend to get along well with Indians I meet in the states. I appreciate India long history and cultural impact (Buddha came from India for example). There were democracies in India before Athens was a thing.

All in all India’s a rising power with a lot of potential. Unfortunately I don’t think they will reach China-status anytime soon because they don’t exercise as much central control as China does.

In some ways this is good, Cultural Revolution wasn’t exactly a great experience for a lot of people. But in other ways it means the Indian government doesn’t have the power to reshape India in a way where it can successfully rival the European powers.

I think Israel in its current state is beyond saving

I think the fundamental issue with Isreal is that it was started as an ethnostate with the national religion explicitly endorsing their own population as “special” and “chosen by God”.

That ideology would never be compatible with a modern cosmopolitan liberal democratic society. All races and religions and people should be of equal worth. Any ideology that views itself as somehow special would always degenerate to apartheid and brutality.

Add in the fact that Jews are some of the smartest and most industrious people on the planet and you have a very dangerous country. You mix willingness and capacity and you get action- what we are seeing in Gaza today, and really what we’ve been seeing for decades.

I guess that is a long winded way to say, I agree. Israel in its current manifestation cannot be saved. It would require a total deconstruction of their ideology and to be frank, that probably isn’t happening anytime soon.

Maybe after WW3.

Fiction is more important than nonfiction in my opinion. Good fiction teaches you about the human condition. Studies have shown people who read more fiction are more empathetic for example. The ability to put yourself in the mind of another person is not only good for society as a whole, it’s good for the individual because navigating relationships is something you will be dealing with until you die.

That of course isn’t to say nonfiction isn’t important, but that’s what all your textbooks are for. That is nonfiction.

Tldr; I don’t think it’s a problem at all, no

I’m a foreigner. Most aren’t. I work from home. Most don’t. I drink kava everyday. I doubt anybody else does.

It’s all just fancy statistics. It turns words into numbers. Then it finds patterns in those numbers. When you enter a prompt, it finds numbers that are similar and spits out an answer.

You can get into vectors and back propagation and blah blah blah but essentially it’s a math formula. We call it AI but it’s not fundamentally different than solving 2x + 4 = 10 for x.

Couple of things

There was a 62% voter turnout in the 2020 election. 46.8% of voters voted for Trump.

0.62 x 0.468 = .290

So actually, 29% of people voted for Trump.

If we do the same calculation for AfD in 2021. 76.6% voter turnout in Germany and AfD got 10.4% of votes.

0.766 x 0.104 = 0.799

So the difference looks like 29% to 8% US to Germany.

But you have to remember the US and Germany are different political systems. There are only two parties in the US, so each of the big parties (DNC, GOP) have many different factions. Moderate Republicans would be an entirely different party from Trumpian “MAGA” Republicans if the US had a party system like Germany.

They functionally ally together in order to form a government, much like different parties will do in parliamentary systems in Europe.

So if we for example take the center-right Christian conservative party and add that to AfD, which in my opinion more closely resembles the GOP, we get the following numbers.

76.6% voter turnout. AfD got 10.4% of votes. CDU got 24.1% of votes.

0.766 x (0.104 + 0.241) = .264

So we’re actually looking at a ratio more like 29% US to 26% Germany. Fundamentally not that different.

And last thing I’d like to add. Shifts in the political Overton window like we’re seeing right now happens at an exponential rate. It’s why Germany in the early 1900s went from a liberal democratic society to full blown Fascist dictatorship fairly quickly.

I think the process has started in the US first, but the movement is shifting to other countries too. US news is emphasized because of the importance of the US as a superpower, but this process of the hard shift to the right is happening in many countries.

We see it not only in certain parties gaining ground like Fratelli d’Italia, Sweden Democrats, Rassemblement National, Alternative für Deutschland, etc - but the rhetoric changing. Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric that would be rare a decade or two ago is seeing a large increase.

We see populist like Argentina’s Milei, Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Canada’s Poilievre, etc all following the footsteps of Trump and being wildly successful. People globally feel insecure and it’s a ripe environment for these types of right-wing populists.

I view the US as the leader of the Zietgiest right now, much like Germany was the leader of the Zietgiest during WW2. It’s leading the pack, but we’re all headed towards the same destination.

It’s because our media is manipulated. When Saudi Arabia commits war crimes, it’s more or less ignored. When Russia does it, it’s plastered all over the media. China suppresses protests, it’s an authoritarian hellhole. When we do it, it’s law and order. In China the great firewall is censorship, here when we ban TikTok it’s justified.

I suggest everyone read Chomsky’s manufacturing consent. It goes over many historical examples like above and the mechanisms by which it happens

There are right wing populists in virtually every democracy these days. It’s not an issue unique to the US. I think it’s a byproduct of our times. Economic uncertainty + geopolitical tensions and war = hard shift to the right.

I looked through out of curiosity and I believe you can say with a bit of a stretch that I hit about 3.

I’m never going to go vegan. I was raised in a part of South America with a very strong cattle / meat culture. I don’t want to live without nice steaks every week.

If that means some animal has to live in what’s essentially slavery then it’s the price I’m willing to pay.

Just like we’re both willing to live with poor 3rd worlders mining lithium and cobalt for us in abysmal conditions so that we can communicate on our fancy electronic devices.

The system is a pyramid. Is it our fault we were born near the top? Reminds me of the part in the Bible, the rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him what he should do to get into heaven

Jesus says “sell all of your belongings, give the money to charity, and follow me”. What’d the rich man do? He cried.

The point is that people wanna be good and ethical but don’t actually want to give up quality of life. It’s not just veganism, it’s for everything. Capitalist/imperialist exploitation, climate change, etc.

Try to lead by example, sell your stuff and follow Jesus.

Veganism is more or less a 1st world phenomenon. Most humans, especially in the past, did not have the luxury to choose what they could eat. They ate what they could get and if they got access to meat and animal products they ate it because it has high nutritional and caloric value. Even the vegetarian Indians who don’t eat meat foe religious purposes still have eggs, milk, etc.

It feels disconnected with the human struggle.

In addition, it’s sort of meaningless in the grand scheme of things. OK. You don’t eat meat to protect domesticated cows. In reality, those cows would not exist in the first place. So really, you’re advocating to eliminate the species of domesticated cattle.

In addition, our modern society requires massive amounts of energy which is often generated by fossil fuels. Even if a society uses 100% solar, they’re importing products from countries like China that burn coal.

So you’re pumping out carbon emissions that will inevitably result in mass extinctions anyway. It seems like a meaningless protest against the inevitable. You say let’s exterminate the cows to save them from suffering on one hand and with the other drive to work talking on your iPhone with the A/C turned up- contributing to the destruction of infinitely more animals.

The only real way to stop is for everyone to give up every modern luxury and live in a log cabin in the woods. And for the vast majority of the population to die off.

It just feels like pissing into the void but doing so with moral superiority.

Having said all that, I empathize with many vegans. But those are some thoughts on why people may look down on vegans.

If you know who you are and what you believe in then you should have no fear like others are saying. Go wherever you want and talk to whoever you want. I used to regularly post on /r/debatefascism before it got banned on reddit. I was disappointed when it got banned.

When you argue with someone online, you’ll never change their opinion… but you may sway some random lurker just browsing through.

I understand that a lot of the far right use “free speech” as essentially a dog whistle- but freedom of expression in my opinion is a vital part of a free society. That doesn’t mean private places like Lemmy instances have any obligation to follow free speech. But I do support and respect places that do.

I prefer Linux not for freedom, not for money, not for privacy.

I do it because I’ll be fucking damned if hardware I own is going to generate value for some large faceless corporation. It’s my computer. I paid for it. I’m not going to install Windows so it can send telemetry and show me ads in order to benefit Microsoft’s bottom line.

It’s like owning a car and letting Uber use it for free every once in a while. No thanks, not me.

The problem is you can’t really define what is “good for society”. Maybe I think weird abstract art is good for society, whereas most people think it’s a waste of time.

Who gets to decide?

That’s an extreme example, but there are many such types of cases. Is a cash advance place “good for society”? It scams poor people but also provides them a line of credit that banks will not.

What about used car dealerships that sell overpriced cars at high interest? Is that “good”? Poor people get scammed but it gets them a car they otherwise would not be able to get a higher end dealership.

As for what I would do? Probably just contribute to open source projects or something.

all valid points. an AA/NA meeting in an urban area is going to be fundamentally different than a meeting in a rural hillbilly part of the country.

I agree with what you’re saying. better to sample all sorts of different things. Really I just don’t want people to be scared of going to meetings because of the religious element. I like NA because you meet other people and you start to see patterns and get a sponsor and really dig into why you’re addicted, your life circumstances, etc as you follow the steps.

I went to 3 meetings a week for 6 months until I felt I didn’t need it anymore and I’ve been clean since. Doesn’t have to be the dramatic “90 in 90” that they recommend.

If your health insurance will cover a medical treatment program, that is also wise

I think stuff like methadone and/or suboxone works, but rehab is sort of a scam. Maybe because I live in what’s termed the “rehab capital of the world” but it has a piss-poor success rate and it just seems like a way to extract as much money as possible from insurance companies by unscrupulous companies.

and sure, fuck insurance companies, but we’re talking about real people here. people from all across the country come here, end up meeting a bunch of other addicts, get a bunch of connections to find drugs and end up addicted here in south florida. it’s a very common story

I have a friend of mine who ended up working as a therapist in a rehab, had a master’s degree in psychology and all that - he had gone to rehab over 10 times and was still struggling. He relapsed and lost his job last year.