Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
It impacts the future of the election interference case.
You're viewing a single thread.
9 people decide to allow presidents to act as dictators
The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/01/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court
Trump's appointments tipped the balance. They didn't "decide" as much as been taken over. It's a part of the judicial system gone rogue and Congress is supposed to reign it back in.
9 people had the influence to decide.
So 9 people.
Edit: Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people, and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
The level of corruption of the court is another matter.6
Unless you think similarly in presidential elections.
Unless you think similarly in presidential elections.
When a majority elects a representative, it's called the will of the people. So yes it is perfectly normal to consider the group collectively.
It's similar to saying a team played badly, because collectively they did, even if a couple of players didn't.
So you can say 6 or 9 both are correct, meaning the "correction" was unnecessary.
at which point 3 people's views were ignored which is why they dissented to the majority opinion. Joe Biden in 2020 had 51.5% of the vote, under your same logic 155 million people as a group decided to elect Joe Biden. Which, while technically true, you're pushing semantics at that point that minimizes the differences in views and opinions.
at which point 3 people’s views were ignored
They are still part of a body of 9.
Right, so six.
Do you not understand the words you used or the word dissent.
I see from your own argument that you were a Trump supporter in 2016. Not someone I'd listen about anything.
I was never was and never will be a Trump supporter, or even Republican so you see wrong.
But I can see from your comment that you are one to jump to conclusions without reason, so "Not someone I’d listen about anything".The person you're arguing with made the point that if you hold the ones who voted against the bad thing happening as partly responsible, by the same logic, you should hold people who voted for Clinton in 2016 partly responsible for the election of Trump.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the entire USA including you is responsible for Trump becoming president and the entire SCOTUS is responsible for today's ruling, or you're not responsible for Trump winning and the three dissenters are also not responsible for today's ruling.
I get that you're angry, and it's a good day to be angry, the day that they ended democracy, but maybe be more selective about who you're angry with and sometimes try to check if maybe there are some valid things people can disagree with you about.
including you
I'm not American. But yes in a way we have collective responsibility as a people for the politicians we elect, and what we allow in our society.
It’s similar to saying a team played badly
Yes, but the comment didn't say that the SCOTUS decided, it said 9 people did. Would you say that 53 people played badly? That's how many are on the team, after all.
OK I can see your point. I suppose I stand corrected.
Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people
funny how you are proud of your kindergarten logic
and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
and the majority in this case was... wait for it... SIX PEOPLE 😂
so "the court decided to..." or "6 members decided to..." is true, but "9 members decided to..." is not true, because 3 members decided not to.
similarly you can say "51% of people voted for biden" or "people voted for biden", but not "100% of people voted for biden" - because that would simply not be true.
if you have any other difficult question, like why is water wet, don't hesitate to ask 😂
Six.
All 9 were part of the decision making. For me it is amazing that so important decisions are left to so few
Someone must always make decisions, a world where no decisions are made would devolve into a Mad Max type thing, where the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom would become very readily apparent. We used to decide these things with trial by combat, where the most skilled warrior (or who chose the most skilled as their champion) was right because God apparently said so, by making him so good at fighting. Still a person making a decision. Not far off from a world where you decide if someone was a witch by trying to build a bridge out of them.
The modern trick is dividing up the decision-making power so much that nobody can assemble it all into their personal toolkit and fully embrace corruption with no consequences.