• Hildegarde@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    The court’s ruling prevents the president from being personally charged criminally for official acts during the presidency. The ruling doesn’t give the executive branch unlimited powers. The ruling doesn’t put the executive branch above the authority of the courts. The ruling doesn’t force federal employees to blindly follow any order given by the president. Courts and congress can stop the executive branch. The checks and balances still exist.

    The president can’t be charged for any crimes they commit when on duty, just like cops and CEOs. They charge the organization with the crime to shield the individual who actually did the crime. This is american justice. Turns out many people are above the law.

    The threat of eventual prosecution is not the only thing preventing widespread political assassinations.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      The president can’t be charged for any crimes they commit when on duty, just like cops and CEOs.

      You do know that is a problem, right?

    • otp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      So you’re saying that Biden personally needs to do it?

      • ricecake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        More realistically, in that it still won’t happen but it involves more paperwork and less people with guns so the it done easier to get done: use the executive powers to declare their homes national parks open to the general public.
        Or order the Treasury department to put them on the list of people banks can’t do business with. One person in the Treasury making a 30 second form entry, and over the next few days it’ll trickle out and freeze their accounts, credit cards, mortgages, and everything. Sure, the random banker involved could override it but they, ironically, have personal criminal liability risk if they do so, and do they really want to risk a decade in prison rather than let the lawyers fight about it?