![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/24b1e15c-f5b6-4a90-9369-d6cf1a7f1cac.png)
She still won the popular vote by millions. The thing is though, the electoral college is a relic that needs an overhaul at best, and that’s problematic for a lot of reasons. I largely agree with you though.
She still won the popular vote by millions. The thing is though, the electoral college is a relic that needs an overhaul at best, and that’s problematic for a lot of reasons. I largely agree with you though.
I actually think this might be an extension of them protecting their IP. Afterall, the IP of plenty of other companies has been mined for use training Generative AI LLM’s.
I seem to remember motorola having a phone awhile back (2016?) that had basically a magsafe battery pack that would just lay on the back of it. And a speaker and such. It was gimmicky given how uncomfortable the naked phone would be to hold in your hand, but it was cool that such a thing was possible.
I’m a bit bothered that people aren’t going to the web to read the ruling in full. They’re relying heavily on dissenting SCOTUS member’s statements and the media. I’m also disheartened at the number of people who don’t know their rights, don’t understand the government’s functions in society, and don’t understand that the constitution is meant to be a living document that restricts what the government can do, not what its citizens can. Of course the number of people who don’t know what’s in the constitution and its amendments is also very high.
It wasn’t that terribly long ago that we didn’t have presidential term limits. There’s absolutely a way forward with further amendments to the constitution which is something we as a people should also lobby for.
Edit: Speak of the devil: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750735-joe-morelle-amendment-supreme-court-immunity-ruling/
Is this the same sensor they use on their pixel tablet?
I don’t disagree with that in the grand scheme of things. But a presidential pardon can only be accepted under the understanding that the person who receives it is admitting by accepting it that they committed the crime. As such a service member with a dishonorable discharge would not have their benefits re-instated, for instance.
The interesting thing for me is that I own two different surface pro 7 tablets. I have one for work and one for home (now that work doesn’t require me to bring my own device anymore). The work surface has windows 10 pro on it. My home one doesn’t, The difference is very interesting. The IT team have disabled a lot of stuff on my work surface that I don’t even have access to on my home unit. I don’t often have bugs from updates breaking things at work. I do at home though which is enough for me to perhaps upgrade the windows key on my home unit someday. If I don’t install linux first which is a possibility.
If the size of the pixel 9 is good I’ll upgrade. Other than that I’m good.
Ironic.
““Manipulation of human likeness and falsification of evidence underlie the most prevalent tactics in real-world cases of misuse,” the researchers conclude. “Most of these were deployed with a discernible intent to influence public opinion, enable scam or fraudulent activities, or to generate profit.””
Who could have seen that coming? But in all seriousness, this is exactly why so many people have been so vehemently opposed to generative AI. It’s not because it can’t be useful. It’s literally because of how it is actively being used.
I don’t actually think that statement is true. Polls are notoriously wrong all the time, and the members of the Democratic Party requesting he drop out are doing so because they’re afraid to say otherwise. I’ll give you an example. Members of the Republican party notably were very critical of Trump until they realised that to continue in the political sphere they were going to have to get along to get along when it became clear he was the front runner.
The members of the DNC who are asking for Biden to step down are doing so even though they know that no other possible candidate is likely to win. They did the same with Bernie Sanders in 2016. They aren’t worried that he’ll lose the popular vote. They’re worried he’ll lose Electoral College votes because some of them are apparently still on the fence. If they wanted to put forth another candidate they would have already. Who have they put forward to put on the ticket? No one. Because they don’t have anyone else either. For them it’s a no win situation and they’re scared so they’re trying to cover their own asses.
It is absolutely highly concerning. That said, there’s way too many people who haven’t read the official ruling who are panicking instead of advocating for people to vote to keep Biden in office and prepare another viable candidate for that office once his second term is up. Because the only way to get these idiots off the SCOTUS is to elect non-conservative presidents who can win. And that only happens if people both vote and lobby for what they want. We need better electoral college regulations. We need ranked voting. We need the people to lobby to further limit the government because obviously this is what happens when we don’t.
This ruling, coupled with the whole “Biden is too old, he should step down” BS is exactly the kind of propaganda concoction that will lead to Trump being re-elected in November if we don’t do something.
Do I think this is a way for a President to sanction and enact the murder of political rivals? Under certain circumstances, yes. Do I think the average citizen should be worried about the President signing their death warrant? No.
You have to understand that we’ve had alphabet agencies for a long time and the President literally could use certain pretexts to kill a person if they wanted so long as they did it a specific way. That has not changed just because of this ruling and that’s a big factor people should look at. There’s a reason former Presidents haven’t been prosecuted for drone strikes. Technically they could have been held accountable in a court of law before that. But we’ve known for a long time that in all actuality the law only works that way if you’re poor or if you’re going up against someone else who’s independently wealthy. That’s why Epstein is dead after all. Not because he trafficked young girls. But because his imprisonment put other rich people in danger. Sam Bankmanfried isn’t in prison because he stole money. He’s in prison because he stole from other rich people. Same with Elizabeth Holmes.
When Trump was in office, I need you to understand that the government (the people who guard national secrets) actually considerered him a threat and limited his ability to do damage by not telling him things. We would have been much worse off if they hadn’t.
As a result, the apparatus of the government is not a monolith, just like the apparatus of the military or even just the US as a whole. It’s made up of people. And we’ve limped along this far because we could rely on them not to do certain things. But what Trump was able to get away with by being elected and being in office? This is the fallout of that.
Your statement that the president can “personally” violate any law without criminal liability isn’t correct. Here’s a direct quote from the ruling “Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.”
On its face this ruling admits there is a such thing as an unofficial act. The problem is that the SCOTUS should not be allowed to make this decision without checks or balances in place. I.e. if they are making the deduction that a President has immunity, they must cede the determination of such acts that have immunity vs those that don’t to another regulatory body. That’s the disturbing part to me.
This also makes me question what the point is of the impeachment process specifically because of this passage from the same ruling:
“When the President exercises such author ity, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions.”
Technically an impeachment is not a criminal trial. But that passage doesn’t specify the scope. So it could be used to argue that impeachment (while not a criminal proceeding) is an examination of the Presidents actions that potentially would not be allowed. And since the impeachment process is a check and balance for the presidential office, that’s not okay.
Humidity where I live right now is 81%. And we’re having a “dry spell”.
I use bread mostly only for toast. So awhile. Especially since my husband likes sour dough and I like whole wheat.
The Criminal Division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is responsible for processing all local criminal matters including felony, misdemeanor, District of Columbia code violations and criminal traffic cases.
Because (just like in NY with Trump, and specific charges, if a crime is committed within a state the state has the right to prosecute regardless of impeachment or federal charges. The UCMJ is technically federal law. But we’re looking at three different aspects of lawful charges for persons who might commit a crime per the Presidents order. The president could absolutely pardon the persons involved. But only at the federal level. There’s nothing stopping the state or states from prosecuting the same individual. It’s not just one set of checks and balances is my point. The department of justice can also bring charges regardless of UCMJ tribunal (Court Material). Which is really where double jeopardy should kick in but doesn’t for service members.
Additionally and most importantly actually, a court martial conviction for murder would result in a dishonorable discharge from the military. That can’t be overturned by a presidential pardon. They would lose their benefits. Medical and so on. Pensions. It’s a cost benefit analysis at that point. They don’t just get to walk away no harm no foul cause presidential pardon.
If there were someone would have taken a shot at Trump long before now.
Yes. You can face state and federal charges separately. Double jeopardy is when they charge for the same crime twice in the same court (state or federal), after you’ve either been convicted or been acquitted.
Specifically they would have to have new evidence in order to charge you a second time in either federal or state court.
That not what I said. What I said is their comments aren’t legal precedent. That’s not the same thing. Or are we taking everything that’s ever come out of Clarence Thomas’s mouth as legal precedent now?
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/07/01/scotus-ruling-seal-team/
And those people would still face state charges because that’s how that works. You can’t get a presidential pardon for state crimes.
Those things are already happening and will get worse if we don’t lobby and vote. This has been the vendetta of the conservative party I. This country for several decades. They have been taking small chunks out of every regulatory legislative government branch and agency for literal decades with the intent that eventually they could undermine the government process enough to get what they want.
The reason I said "citizens worried about the President signing their death warrant* is because that’s literally what headlines have been saying and I see a lot of those same headlines parotted both on Lemmy in these discussion threads, and in other web forums in relation to the topic of criminal charges being brought against a sitting or former president.
We should have always been worried about our rights. We should have always been lobbying to further limit the government in what it can do against the people. Instead we haven’t made a new amendment to the constitution since '92, and we are Leary of doing so and keeping it a living document because we fear all the things the other side will do, and they’re doing them anyway.