Oh gotcha, no worries! I was just kind of like whaaa?? when I read the comment at first.

It's mostly been conservatives that have a problem with this, not progressives for the most part. I mean sure some progressives are against but they're by far the minority.

I know progressives and democrats, and conservatives and Republicans, aren't the same thing, but you get the picture. I think most on the left would prefer to stand up to authoritian genocidal governments, whereas many conservatives crazily see a lot they like in Russian government and want the US to embrace them.

Also in the northern district of Texas. I smell some judicial venue shopping. Northern district of Texas is basically now the Mordor of the legal world.

The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.

He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal for the president to accept a bribe to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn't even be mentioned in court.

Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it's an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it's the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can't even be used as evidence against him. It doesn't matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren't determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they're determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn't matter what he's actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That's perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn't already immune. Now it can't even be brought up in court.

In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There's also a very worrying core power in article 2 about "ensuring laws are faithfully executed" that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence as it could apply to seemingly anything. Basically, as long as the president is using the levers of government to commit crimes, legal now.

Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn't be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.

Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.

I wonder if valve is planning on bringing the driver level implementation of frame generation to the steam deck as well. Theoretically should be able to support it I think, since it's an RDNA 2 gpu.

As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren't willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there's literally nothing they can do.

*and even the number of democrats minus 50 don't want to. So even one (plus Harris helping) in the first two years of the term or even two (if Harris helps again) in the second two years of the past term. It's not like all democrats are unified about the filibuster, most voted to bypass it. You need either more than 60 dems total, or more than 50 dems that support bypassing the filibuster.

Or you know, even a single republican that doesn't want to be a facist helping to transition the country to authoritarian rule. But that seems less likely unfortunately.

https://www.newsweek.com/gretchen-whither-chances-beating-trump-poll-1919211

That's my concern too. Harris was closest at about the same percent as Biden. Though it did increase the amount of people who would say they're not sure when compared to the Biden Trump race. It's possible a new candidate might have some wiggle room to convince more swing voters. So I think there's an argument to be made that some of the potential replacements have a higher ceiling than Biden does that they might get to even if they start at a lower polling basis. I would feel a lot better about a switch if someone was actually polling better than Biden already though.

https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/358559/biden-harris-whitmer-newsom-shapiro-buttigieg-alternative-nomination-candidate-2024

These ones were earlier from February 2024, and though it was only in a single poll, the only person who recorded a higher percent than Biden in a poll was fucking Joe Manchin, ugh.

That is an impressive amount of LPS (lies per sentence), even by Trump standards. Some of them have layers, like a nesting doll of lies where each lie has even more lies inside when examined closely.

Wisconsin is the most gerrymandered state in the nation at the state government level. Even though democrats got more votes, Republicans ended up with a super majority in one house and large majority in another. This is why you see the statewide elections like governor and attorney general, and the state legislature makeup, differing so much. They can't gerrymander a state wide vote.

Okay, I was linking polling about actual policies that were passed and implemented though, and those were popular with people.

That's what this articles is about, but policies passed during the Biden admin have also been popular, though according to these sources some not well advertised enough.

https://navigatorresearch.org/one-year-after-passage-the-inflation-reduction-act-maintains-broad-support/

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/12/politics/bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-poll-support/index.html

https://apnews.com/article/poll-ukraine-aid-congress-b772c9736b92c0fbba477938b047da2f

I tried but it's harder to find polling on very specific executive department actions and regulations though, like the SAVE student loan repayment plan changes for example. So harder to say on those.

Military tribunals? Sounds like some of his article 2 powers with absolute immunity now, their use cannot be questioned. Go to town Trump, say the conservatives on the supreme court.

The majority are the ones who said that any use of constitutional presidential powers creates absolute immunity. All the dissenters are doing is pointing out the obvious implications and saying why the majority is wrong to create that immunity more eloquently than I can. You are the one who is confused. Or more likely, just arguing in bad faith. But just in case,

It's on the very first page of the majority ruling, here you go:

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts

Seperately from the absolute immunity, any powers not delegated in the constitution (official acts they call it), have presumptive immunity. Uses of specifically delegated constitutional powers, like the military, have absolute immunity. If its an ability delegated to him in the constitution, the majority ruling says that cannot be questioned. They say neither by themselves or congressional laws. Only use of powers not delegated in the constitution can the court even begin to question if it was an "official act."

The majority says something along the lines of "oh this is just a little immunity we didn't give turmp everything he asked for." I have no idea why they can write that with a straight face. Besides the fact that giving any criminal immunity to the president is totally antithetical to the founding principles of our country, they in fact have given him everything he asked for. Trump himself was arguing if he was impeached for something then he should be able to be criminally liable still. But now thanks to the supreme court conservative justices, for the vast majority of the scariest things a president can do, like the command the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of officials, he couldn't be held criminally liable even if he was impeached. It was more than Trump asked for. They may have even managed to torpedo both of his state criminal cases.

The Supreme Court majority is just so worried that poor president's will get harassed by prosecutors afterwards? Good! He should be afraid of breaking the law, just like everyone else. And if that can be proven in a court of law, he should go to jail, just like everyone else. The supreme court has now elevated the president above the rule of law and abdicated the responsibilities of the judiciary branch.

Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.

The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.

Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

You're right! Even easier. Article 2 power use again, cannot be questioned. Pre emptive pardons for everyone involved. We were all worried about the possibility of Trump self pardoning, but this court has made that possibility seem quaint in comparison to what they've bestowed.

Read the ruling. They're quite clear about the absolute immunity for any use of executive powers granted by the constitution. That includes things like being commander in chief of the military, powers of pardon, appointing and firing of officials, and more! I even linked it for you to read. Don't have to take my word for it. And if you can't figure out the implications of the ruling read justice Sotomayor's and justice Jackson's dissents.

A prosecutor can argue that such an egregious order falls well outside the scope of the office, and constitutes an "unofficial act".

Incorrect, according to this ruling, his use of the military has absolute immunity. It doesn't matter what he's doing with it, they can't even question if it's an official act or not. That only factors in when using powers not delegated in the constitution. You do point out some more absurdities in the majority's ruling though, theoretically a court could hold troops accountable for unlawful orders but could not hold the executive accountable for giving them. Moot point though, who's bringing the charges against the troops in this situation? President has absolute criminal immunity for hiring and firing, just fire any prosecutors whether that's justice department or military justice if they try to do so.

The president does not have the power to order Seal Team 6 to violate the Posse Comitatus act.

Null and void, they specifically state that not only the court doesn't have the power to question, neither does congress. The supreme court just made posse comitatus toilet paper.

The only way out for this mess is replacing the justices or a constitutional ammendment that's says, yes we still have the rule of law for everyone, including the president.

And yes I read the whole thing. And if the majority can't see what they have enabled they're stupid. But I don't think it's stupidity, they're smart people. That only leaves malice. Or some very different political ideals than I hold about the rule of law at least.

I agree, but 6 of the 9 justices of the supreme court don't apparently. It's quite disturbing. Any use of powers delegated to the president in the constitution including thing like use of the military and pardons, is beyond any question according to this ruling.

Use of the military is delegated to him under article 2, his use of that power cannot be questioned. The ruling says what you just described cannot happen. He has absolute immunity for anything he uses that power for. Appointing or firing officials? Article 2, cannot be questioned. Granting pardons? Article 2, cannot be questioned, doesn't matter why he did it.

Only if the president is using some ability or power not specifically delegated in the constitution can a judge even began to decide if it counts as an official act. And then if that does, not quite as good as absolute immunity, but still presumptive immunity.

And it gets even worse! Anything the president did as an "official act" cannot be used against him in court as evidence. So much of the evidence in all the cases he has can no longer be used! If any of the charges survive at all in the first place given this ridiculously broad immunity ruling. This ruling is so bad it may even help him get out his state charges unexpectedly. There's a slim chance some of the charges may live on, but the funny thing about the ruling is it gives even more criminal immunity to some the scariest things the president has the power to do.

If this ruling is terrible for Trump, why does the dissent start out by saying this gives everything Trump asked for and more?!

I'm sorry, but you're just incorrect. Please just read the dissents from the actual constitutional scholars in the ruling though instead of my dumb internet comments trying to summarize. They explain it all much better and more thoroughly.

The first dissent starts on page 68 of the document I linked, and with the very large margins is a surprisingly quick read.

Here's a link to the actual study:

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/Why_Are_There_Gaps_in_LGBTQ%2B_Homeownership.pdf

Unfortunately the link was broken in the article and the article itself didn't have a lot of detail. I think this led to most of the comments here as saying "oh this is just because such and such factor" which yes of course everything people are saying are all factors and they're specifically listed as factors in the report. But the gap still remained when controlling for those factors too, including lgbt people living in more expensive areas (and even with that, the reason they're in more expensive areas is because those areas have more tolerant policies, also nicely laid out in the report).