Bumblefumble

The last person to die who was born in the 90's isn't a 90's kid, or at least won't remember the 90's.

Just to add some more fun quotes:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

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

I'm not saying that he should be doing it or that it makes sense. But no, it is very clear from the decision that he would be immune. He has absolute immunity for core powers and presumed immunity for all official acts, which the court left very vague, but didn't deny would include assassinating political opponents. The dissenting opinion made it very clear that this was the case.

With that said, in some way you are right. If Biden did it, it would be appealed and the SC would rule that in this specific case he isn't immune, whereas if Trump did the same, it would be appealed and they would rule that he is immune. Because the SC is corrupt and doesn't care about precedent.

Ok correction, it's not legal, the president can just never be punished for it, as he is immune in order to act swiftly and boldly or whatever the fuck the SC came up with as an excuse to make America a Christo-Fascist state.

Not that I'm advocating for it, but it's completely legal for Biden to order the assassination of Trump and Vance. So yeah, US democracy is dead.

I hope the American people will resist any draconian measures there are bound to be, whether with civil unrest or other forms of protest.

To be fair, he's also breaking Pennsylvanian lottery laws which he could be prosecuted for on a state level.

Bit of an awkward scale for a ruler, but I can sell you one from -6.6666666.... to -6.65 goobs.

0 K is like when there is 0 heat basically, while celsius isn't. Imagine a unit for distance called "goob" where 0 goobs is 100 m and 1 goob is 115 m. In that case the goob unit would behave differently than a meter when you multiply and divide because 0 of the units don't actually correspond to "nothing" in a physical sense. That's exactly how the Celsius scale is, with zero being placed somewhere arbitrarily, not at a physical zero.

I agree with this take completely. The parent comment just seemed to encourage senseless retribution without nuance, which is what I tried to voice my opposition to.

Is it? I'm not saying it's likely, but for the sake of argument let's say Netanyahu is voted out and a new Israeli government takes power that says, "We are tired of endless violence. We will remove all settlements, checkpoints, etc, and respect a two state solution with Palestinian sovereignty over the agreed upon Palestinian land." Would that not be the goal, the ideal? Or would you throw that away by trying to get back at Netanyahu and all the horrible people who have committed these crimes. Maybe I'm naïve, but you can't say that at least the aspiration should be peace. Whether that's possible without something happening to the perpetrators of violence is another question, but the retribution shouldn't be the end goal and aspiration, peace should be.

There can be no sustainable peace with constant retribution, I think that's the core thing going through this conflict this last century. For example, Israel wanted "justice" for the October 7th attacks. Did that lead to a better outcome for humanity and people living in the area? No, only more war and suffering. More war, bloodshed, and retribution is not the answer, we need to break the cycle of violence.