I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.

https://theconversation.com/above-the-law-in-some-cases-supreme-court-gives-trump-and-future-presidents-a-special-exception-that-will-delay-his-prosecution-232907

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.

Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.

the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.

For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.

The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.

Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I’ve been reading.

Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we’ve already presumed. The larger issue that’s been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.

I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.

And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.

I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.

Then they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed and face a jury of their peers to determine their guilt. That is not what this case is about.

I didn’t know “gay” was a people. I don’t go around calling straight people “my people”. How weird. Maybe you’ve got some prejudice against certain groups that don’t look like you.

I like seeing our right to not be spied on being defended, yes.

I don’t know how your “people” are but you should know it’s not about defending a person but the rights of all Americans.

The country was founded in large part as a nation for those escaping oppression and persecution for their beliefs. It was designed to provide everyone certain freedoms the founders claimed to be inalienable.

While this is still an immensely powerful idea, it can not function without guidelines and government involvement.

Two hundred fifty years ago, it made sense for sparsely populated states to operate mostly independent of the federal government. In time, land became more dense and borders dividing populations and cultures and commerce blurred. Now, the entire world is instantly connected.

Somehow, generation after generation, it was not self-evident that all people should be treated equally. The police force and prison system still largely resemble what they were initially intended to do - serve the wealthy and enslave people for profit.

The United States affords everyone the same freedoms and opportunities by way of doing nothing at all. Everyone has the opportunity to work hard and make a fair living for themselves. But some people win the genetic lottery and inherit extra opportunities and extra freedoms.

We all have the freedom to be complete idiots and that’s considered a win.

Our constitution needs to be re-written. In my opinion, it needs to be explicit about what all the citizens of the United States should be afforded: education, health care, clean air and water, shelter, the right to not be lied to by the people who draft and pass legislation impacting our lives, the right to a source of information that’s not subject to special interests.

No. I can’t say I like it. I don’t like how our government is intent on making our lives worse by their inaction. They take more and more of our money while we get less and less in benefits.

We have no leadership. We have influencers and celebrities. Some people complain about globalism because they know we can’t compete on a global scale. People are prejudice of foreigners who take their jobs because they’re complacent with doing as little as possible. Our most successful form of entertainment is ragebait. Who’s helping us progress as a country? Who’s helping to make us smarter and healthier and happier? Who exactly is promoting general welfare and domestic tranquility?

It’s the land of the me and home of maybe. And our constitution supports your freedom to be this way. Some people love that and claim the freedom to do nothing is what makes America great.

A great America, to me, is one built for everyone to prosper, that promotes self-worth and civil respect, that strictly enforces the idea that my freedoms can not be infringed upon by you freedoms or beliefs. A great America is one that doesn’t have elections where you have to vote for the person you dislike the least. Politics should be positively engaging. We should give a damn about our leaders and they should have to deal with consequences of their actions, like anyone else.

Though it’s not perfect, the one thing I really love about America is our immigration policy. It’s the best place on the planet for people to escape for a better life. Our country is built by and thrives because of immigrants. It’s the one thing that has held true for hundreds of years. How we treat immigrants is a sin. How our government fails to properly fund our immigration system is appalling. I believe most people are in support of legal immigration yet they fail to support proper funding of our immigration department. It wreaks of racism and bigotry.

America is, by design, the land of the self-righteous. The only people in favor of that are the self-righteous.

people haven’t been taking politics seriously and have elected unserious people.

This is the inherent flaw. We have a representative government that never intended “people” to take politics seriously. Politics was for the landowners.

An excuse not to interact with people.
“Sorry, my notifications were off while I was busy yesterday and didn’t have a chance to check it”.

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That’s the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to “homosexuals” (the ‘in’ term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it’s a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

I totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.

Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?

republicans don’t base their opinions on reality, and Dems do

To be fair, a lot of liberals inflate reality too. Usually it’s to overcompensate for “history”, less than today’s reality. It can be a bit much.

And I wouldn’t say Republicans have opinions so much as they follow cult leaders. An opinion is usually something based on things you know rather than what you’ve been tricked into saying.

The United States is doomed.

We care more about engaging with content that spikes our brain chemicals than we care about facts and reality. So many people have been duped to believe and promote things that are verifiably false for the benefit of corporate interests and the fragile ego of you-know-who.

This article is genuinely terrifying. It confirms that half of Americans believe statements that have been proven to be lies. That’s a lot of people being hoodwinked. That’s a lot of people convinced they should cast a vote to hurt themselves for the benefit of one person who has never done a thing to help them. It honestly breaks my heart.

My initial reason for not having kids was financial. I think a lot of people have learned it may be better to have children later in life when you can properly care for them. I know many people who’ve had their first child in their late-30s and early-40s. My aunt had her first child in her fifties. That’s not something that was common before modern medicine.

I have always had the idea that I would have a kid if and when I met the right person to share parenting with. That hasn’t happened so I’ve had to put some thought into my priorities. It’s not fair to have a child just because it’s what society says you should do or just because you want someone to take care of you when you’re old. It’s so much more than that and I think people should be more mindful of the responsibilities and long term repercussions.

I offered two reasons I personally may regret not having children. I could list several others such as the pure joy of watching them grow into adults and mimic you and your partner. If you want to say that’s selfish, to bring another human into the word to experience a universe of emotion you’d otherwise never experience, I understand that perspective. No argument.

But then I offered that choosing to prioritize your own life is in and of itself a selfish act. It’s more explicitly about you than it is about another person.

Would you disagree that going out to eat by yourself is more of a selfish act than inviting a friend to eat out with you? Sharing an experience is less selfish, no?

That argument makes sense. Though I see it more from choosing to prioritize yourself and own self interests over having children and sharing a life with them as selfish too. I guess we’re all selfish one way or another.

I’m not sure you’re going to get an objective answer to this as no one has lived a life of either having kids or not having kids, hungrythirstyhorny.

I will say that, as a single male in his mid forties who has observed a good amount of life; first, the thought of not having people to rely on in you’re old age is a little worrisome; and two, not having had someone to pass my knowledge and skills down to is a little sad. However, I really enjoy the freedom and opportunities my life (and bank account) affords me.

There is always a cost to freedom. Or, as Jonis Joplin put it - freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Choosing to not have children is a selfish act. Whether “selfish” is a bad thing or not is subjective.

I would offer that anyone who’s going through life without children, find some altruistic outlet to participate in. You can otherwise find yourself wondering what your legacy may be or what the point of your life has been - aka a mid-life crisis.

I guess I’ve been living under a rock because I’ve never heard this story. So, as a curious person, I would have expected someone writing an article about the story would at least take a few sentences to explain WTF beaglegate is about.

I searched on my own and found the story to be mixed truth.

It is a fact that, in two different NIAID congressionally funded studies, beagle puppies were tested on and euthanized.

It’s not clear if Fauci specifically knew of or approved of these studies while he was head of the NIAID. Though all tests were done according to existing procedures and regulations. There’s a lot of misrepresentation of what the tests were or how the dogs were treated for political theater.

Source: snopes and politifact.