I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.

https://theconversation.com/above-the-law-in-some-cases-supreme-court-gives-trump-and-future-presidents-a-special-exception-that-will-delay-his-prosecution-232907

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.

Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.

the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.

For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.

The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.

Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I’ve been reading.

Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we’ve already presumed. The larger issue that’s been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.

I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.

And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.

I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.

I appreciate you letting me know and I’m sorry you live with this. I genuinely do not understand it.

Nearly half of Americans now rate it “very serious,”

Americans are significantly less likely to view prejudice against Muslim people as a very serious problem (33%) than to say prejudice against Jewish people is.
Half of Democrats, compared with 18% of Republicans, say anti-Muslim prejudice is a very serious problem in the U.S., as do 30% of independents.

I’m a raised-catholic-agnostic democrat of mixed European heritage residing in an American east coast city. I barely have an opinion about Jewish people (see below). I have many Jewish friends which means nothing outside of a few weeks in December. I have never in my 45+ years witnessed anti-semitism. What I have observed in the past year is a strong opposition to the Israeli government and its support by the United States (finally). After 9/11, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country was so immense that you could taste it in the air. Not to argue this is inaccurate but I just don’t feel that I live in the same reality as what’s being reported here.

The thing I’ve always considered odd about the Jewish population is the strong connection to a place and people and time whom most have never engaged with. It is what it is and I accept it but it’s unfamiliar to me. And it has absolutely no impact on my perception or opinion of any Jewish persons.

The tribalism and skewed perspectives we’re all capable of needs to be tempered.

Then they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed and face a jury of their peers to determine their guilt. That is not what this case is about.

I didn’t know “gay” was a people. I don’t go around calling straight people “my people”. How weird. Maybe you’ve got some prejudice against certain groups that don’t look like you.

That’s a fair comparison. I don’t think Biden is in this situation, yet. Could be worse - it could be Trump making his own unilateral decisions.

I like seeing our right to not be spied on being defended, yes.

I don’t know how your “people” are but you should know it’s not about defending a person but the rights of all Americans.

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That’s the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to “homosexuals” (the ‘in’ term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it’s a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

If you have something to say, go for it.

Because we know how well things have turned out when courts, such as the Supreme Court, rules on things it believes are “ambiguous”.

Supreme Court Jan. 6 ruling https://archive.is/3YrYN

The obstruction of an official proceeding statute makes it a felony crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison to “obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.”

But the law, first passed in the wake of the 2001 Enron scandal, is vague about what constitutes an official proceeding and what conduct would constitute an illegal effort to obstruct one.

the law, as originally conceived in 2002, was intended to criminalize the type of evidence destruction and witness tampering that stymied Congressional investigators during the Enron collapse. It was not meant, they argue, to apply to any form disruptive conduct that interferes with any act of Congress.

But federal prosecutors and lower courts have ruled that the statute’s language is vague enough to encompass the type of disruption that brought the Congressional certification of the 2020 electoral vote to a halt during the Jan. 6 riot.

the court concluded the obstruction charge was only intended to apply in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence. It doesn’t apply to the type of behavior that disrupted Congress’ certification of the 2020 vote, the majority ruled.

If anything, RFK’s election results just skyrocketed.

I fully agree with you but can also point to all of Biden’s accomplishments and say, well, he’s done very well, surprisingly well, thus far. I would much rather say, it’s exciting to have fresh young blood in the White House that best represents the vast diversity of this country and the hope for its future. Being able to easily defend Biden’s presidency isn’t enough, if I’m being honest. But also, I mean do we really have to go over everything that DT fucked?

Worst election ever.

The problem is we’re not given an opportunity to vote for who we want to be president. We vote against who we don’t want.

RANKED. CHOICE. VOTING.

And yet a senile knocking on death’s door old man is still the objectively better option than Donald Trump. I just can’t understand how people have forgotten who this guy is and what he did to screw every American for his own ego and interests.

This debate (which I didn’t watch) was a spectacle. We all know both of these farts are not fair presidential candidates for Americans. It’s disgusting and gut wrenching.

If you’re undecided, all you need to do is bypass your social media feed and biased news sources and search for Trump presidential accomplishments | Biden presidential accomplishment. You can also check Politifact to observe their lies (here’s the result from the debate) and presidential promises kept and broken - Trump | Biden.

The problem is the vast majority of people don’t care or aren’t aware of actual policy and legislation that happens in DC. They go by a vibe. And they go by who’s the best orator (see: Obama). And, yeah, Biden did not pass the vibe check last night. But he’s still that guy you work with whom you hate to be around because he’s awkward and smells bad but he’s not firable because he’s a decent keeps-to-himself dude and gets shit done better than most and your company is better with him than without him.

They probably couldn’t find anyone to do sign language for these two. No one’s gonna sign up for an aneurism.

Wrong article there.

http://archive.today/2024.06.26-230111/https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2024/06/26/wild-boar-has-five-times-more-toxic-pfas-than-humans-allowed-to-eat/

I totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.

Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?