The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.
Am I tripping? They’re just saying that they think it’s bad that these kinds of big decisions are up for 9 people to decide. Like, “it’s bad that a court of 9 people has this much power”. I don’t see a “both sides” argument here at all, if anything what I see is a language barrier…
A language barrier is a possibility but I read it more than a few times, and it seemed to say pretty specifically all 9 were complicit in the immunity decision because all nine had the chance to argue it.
Which. Is . . not right. I mean, how to explain a dissenting opinion?
You argue that it is only the ones who voted for who decide, where as i say its all who were involved in the decision making. Who decides who becomes the president? Id say its all who vote. You say its only the ones who vote for the president. Maybe we both are right
Still, granding the president partly immunity by deciding this is how the law should be understood, should not be down to se few people.
BTW, trying to win an argument on US politics simply by taking ownership is just childish!
9 people decide to allow presidents to act as dictators
6-3 split, but yeah
All 9 were part of the decision making. For me it is amazing that so important decisions are left to so few
Yeah you need to learn how the SCOTUS works and stop this bizarre threadshitting you’re doing in all these immunity decision threads.
Oh - you’re not American? Ah, well. More reason to know what you’re talking about then before you repeat it ad nauseam, isn’t it?
Am I tripping? They’re just saying that they think it’s bad that these kinds of big decisions are up for 9 people to decide. Like, “it’s bad that a court of 9 people has this much power”. I don’t see a “both sides” argument here at all, if anything what I see is a language barrier…
A language barrier is a possibility but I read it more than a few times, and it seemed to say pretty specifically all 9 were complicit in the immunity decision because all nine had the chance to argue it.
Which. Is . . not right. I mean, how to explain a dissenting opinion?
so how does this scotus work? Providing some facts backed with searchable terms or a link to legal discussions can help more of us understand.
“Oh so please create a lesson plan for me with links and references so I can learn!”
You sound like a jackass.
You are winning people over all the time with your great reasoning. Don’t venture outside your echo chambers
Do I have to put together some links on how reasoning works too, champ?
You should focus on covering your ass as you’re about to be royally fucked
You argue that it is only the ones who voted for who decide, where as i say its all who were involved in the decision making. Who decides who becomes the president? Id say its all who vote. You say its only the ones who vote for the president. Maybe we both are right
Still, granding the president partly immunity by deciding this is how the law should be understood, should not be down to se few people.
BTW, trying to win an argument on US politics simply by taking ownership is just childish!
Word games don’t make you right. You’re simply incorrect.
Wrong. Also wrong. Oooh, wrong again. Okay, g’bye. Yeah. Bye now.
This is an astroturfing campaign. Tons of bots saying this exact line
The shitty evolution of both sides by blaming the losing side for participating in the system.
I urge you to read the dissent