• tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 hours ago

      What did that scotus ruling mean then? I was under the impression that the president has immunity from prosecution for any acts taken as long as they’re done as part of the job, or whatever the wording was.

      • BadmanDan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        You just answered your own question, apart of his job (official acts). Throwing judges in jail, even if they deserve it, isn’t the president’s job. The judges would have to be properly investigated and prosecuted. Which if a judge is going down for corruption, might as well draw a target on Congress 😭.

        Only was the president CAN throw them in jail by himself, is calling a national emergency and arresting judges off the bases they’re domestic terrorists. And he BETTER be able to prove it, or it’s curtains for him

        • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          part of his job (official acts). Throwing judges in jail, even if they deserve it, isn’t the president’s job.

          I wish I had your faith that the corrupt SCOTUS won’t see literally any action as part of the president’s job. Or at least they won’t be discerning until a dem is back in office.