• JigglySackles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.

      • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don’t seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I’m wrong, but from what you’ve said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don’t want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.

          The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.

          If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.

          This doesn’t mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That’s ridiculous. The ruling even states that.

          • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.

            And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn’t have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.

            • Akuden@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It’s been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn’t gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren’t suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.