WASHINGTON-In 1836, slaveholders took Dred Scott, an enslaved person, from Missouri, a slave state, to the territory that became Minnesota. The law governing that territory prohibited slavery.

No buddy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the people from fuck nuggets like Trump.

  • Kirp123@lemmy.world
    72·
    2 months ago

    Well, I feel like the Supreme Court brought this upon themselves. They made Trump untouchable and now he’s using what they gave him.

    • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
      53·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. As utterly stupid as the argument sounds, he can’t be prosecuted for any official acts and he can pardon anyone who enacts his will, so his administration can deny anyone their constitutional rights and escape accountability.

      That’s not the same as saying folks don’t have rights, but effectively they can be denied any meaningful opportunity to exercise them, without consequence. Someone has a right to a trial? You and what army are going to get to his cell to take them before a judge? No army? Then good luck getting him to court because anyone preventing you from doing so is immune to legal action and anyone NOT preventing you is fired.

      The Supreme Court has issued some terrible rulings in the last twenty years. “Democracy is autocracy” is some 1984-level shit.

    • MuskyMelon@lemmy.worldOP
      23·
      2 months ago

      You don’t need to. Obama wore a tan suit like a male model and the GOP shat a forest of redwoods.

  • mdalin@infosec.pub
    191·
    2 months ago

    I’m just as frustrated and horrified by what’s going on as everyone else, but this headline is SUCH a stretch. Like, 98% click bait, 2% kinda-sorta truth. PLEASE read the actual article and not just the headline.

    This story is about a specific legal mechanism (universal injunction) that has been used by federal judges in dozens of cases throughout decades. It’s a controversial mechanism that has been used on both sides of the political spectrum. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. It’s currently being used to pause some of Trump’s worst bullshit.

    Trump’s lawyers are arguing that this very specific mechanism shouldn’t be permitted in current cases regarding immigration. They’ve also argued that this particular mechanism is unconstitutional. His lawyers are wrong, and shitty, but they are in no way arguing that “the constitution doesn’t apply to the president.”

      • mdalin@infosec.pub
        2·
        2 months ago

        I agree with everything you said. You CAN draw a logical line from what Trump’s lawyers are saying to the conclusion that “Trump lawyers tell Supreme Court that Constitution doesn’t apply to the president.” That statement and conclusion is not, technically, factually, incorrect.

        However, I do feel like using that statement as a headline strips away all the context and nuance, leaving nothing behind but rage-inductive click-bait. That headline gives no meaningful information, and if someone takes it as literal truth, without reading the rest of the story, they will be massively uninformed about what’s actually going on. It’s a disservice to the reader.

  • But_my_mom_says_im_cool@lemmy.world
    10·
    2 months ago

    Next Democrat president better be a dictator handing out gulags to racists while putting money into lgbt causes. Trump says the president has dictatorial power, fucking go for it then.

  • Poach@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    2 months ago

    “All men are created equal”. Some are more equal than others it seems.

  • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
    1·
    2 months ago

    That’s the document literally describing what a president is and what it can do… Claiming it “doesn’t apply” is not even a coherent argument