Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court’s July ruling in Trump v United States granted Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official capacity changes fundamentally the dynamics of the Oval Office. This decision shields a sitting president from legal accountability for official acts, enabling unlawful behavior without consequence.

Critics, including Michael Waldman of the Brennan Center for Justice, argue that this ruling provides a “how-to guide” for presidential lawbreaking.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, solidified by Trump’s three appointees, has previously overturned Roe v. Wade, and now, with this immunity ruling, further consolidates presidential power. If Trump is re-elected, this immunity could embolden him to pursue aggressive policies without fear of legal repercussions, raising concerns about unchecked executive authority and the erosion of democratic checks and balances.

      • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        No shit dickhead, I’m not Spanish. I’m just asking men on Lemmy to be normal about women, which, I get it, for sweaty nerds on the internet is a tall ask.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Is normal the same as common sense? If you want to respect mens bodies too, they tend to be attracted to women visually.

          Why dont you just let men be normal about women alright?

        • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Hey, well I am a huge nerd. But I’m mostly sweaty after a workout, and if someone wants to objectify me sometimes, I’m pretty ok with that.

    • Anti-Face Weapon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      If he said the same about men, would you still have a similar outrage? Genuine question, I’m not trying to put you down.

          • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            Its not objectifying because pretty women make you feel good by seeing them in public.

            Did you do something wrong? Are you supposed to avoid looking at people in public? What if you said all the women were dressed in fun outfits, is that different?

            Its not like you said they were there for your pleasure or something, it was a simple report of the things you liked about a location.

      • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        3 days ago

        Probably, if perhaps to a lesser degree given the difference in cultural context. What is the purpose of your question?