• 0 Posts
  • 13 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • 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.






  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Teaching kids to use guns doesn’t save kids’ lives. If you want to teach em to stay away from guns, that they’re deadly, they shouldn’t touch it and should tell an adult right away go ahead.

    Teaching kids to use guns in the name of gun safety is like saying you need to teach them how to drive in case they find some car keys lying around and decide to take it for a spin.


  • Already in the comment, click the links.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/hero-program-overview

    Here’s where it goes through their curriculum per grade level including pre schoolers.

    The 'heroes" program is not teaching pre schoolers to use guns, it’s teaching them about active shooter situations.

    The other link was the one offering actual gun training (for 7 year olds and up so second graders potentially).

    My comment was that it’s sad we apparently need programs to to teach pre schoolers about how to deal with active shooting situations now.


  • Ranvier@sopuli.xyztoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldRock Eagle Flag
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    The one I linked specifically mentions shooting afterwards for kids as young as 7…

    But yes if guns are at home they should be locked (and really locked, like a trigger lock plus a safe that’s set to something besides 1111, holy crap you’d be surprised at how cavelier some people are) and totally inaccessible to kids. Teaching single digit age kids about guns is not a substitute for that, but of course I’m not saying you shouldn’t teach your kids that they shouldn’t touch guns and what they can do.

    And teaching kids about guns will not solve the serious gun problems in America. The gun problems unique to America that pretty much every other industrialized nation has figured out already. And it’s a horrible tragedy that stuff like “the heroes program” to teach preschoolers how to deal with active shooters is necessary in this country. All to please gun nuts.

    https://www.safekidsinc.com/

    Most gun nuts aren’t too interested in education anyways:

    https://www.thetrace.org/2022/01/which-states-require-firearm-safety-course-concealed-carry/