Gee, who didn’t see that coming a million miles away.

  • Voroxpete
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Putting aside the specific matter of jurisdiction (state level cases require state level pardons), legal experts widely agree that the concept of a self-pardon does not exist in pretty much any body of law, ever, because it basically refutes the idea of there being a body of law.

    But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can’t legally do it no longer really matters.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      because it basically refutes the idea of there being a body of law

      So does money being the same as speech. So does presidential immunity.

      There seems to be a pattern here.

    • MyNameIsRichard@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      But, given that the supreme court decided that the president is a god-king emperor, the fact that he can’t legally do it no longer really matters.

      That’s what I was wondering about

      • Voroxpete
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        The answer, as I understand it, is basically “Who the fuck knows?”

        Every serious legal analyst seems to agree that the SC’s immunity decision is, uh… I think the technical term is “Total fucking lunacy.” It makes no sense, destroys a lot of existing legal precedent, and generally overturns many of the foundational principles of the US constitution. It’s batshit crazy, and the actual terms of the immunity and how it’s defined are astonishingly vague.

        What the president can or cannot do right now is more or less “???”

        • Corkyskog
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          The SC case can be summarized as “Can the president commit crimes?” “Probably. Tell us what crime it is and we will decide later”