▲ 822 ▼ ICE says its officers can forcibly enter homes during immigration operations without judicial warrants: 2025 memo (www.nbcnews.com) submitted 6 months ago by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world 193 comments fedilink hide all child comments Turns out all you need is a Supreme Court majority on your side and you can wipe your ass with the Constitution.
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 70 points 6 months ago (1 child) "Official acts." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 25 points 6 months ago* (2 children) Which by DEFINITION, would not include Un-Constitutional behavior. No violation of the Constitution could ever be construed as an "Official Act." No SCOTUS had ever put guardrails on the president in almost 250 years, but this SCOTUS reinforced that he has immunity for "Official Acts," and nobody realizes that they just put guardrails on the presidency for the first time. Everybody thinks it gives him immunity for EVERYTHING while he is president, but they specifically said "Official Acts," which would be those outlined in the Constitution. Anything deemed Un-Constitutional, would not be an "Official Act," and he would not have immunity, just like any other citizen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago Be sure to cite that when they're breaking down your door without a warrant because you posted a meme of Trump online permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago Guardrails? I think you should re-read their decision again. They gave him protection because until now even official acts didn't necessarily protect the president. And now, it doesn't matter what illegal thing he does as long as it's part of an official act. ANYTHING. Because as long as it's part of an official act they can't even question it. And they didn't even provide a list of what constitutes an official act. So they literally put the president above all laws provided he can tie it back to some vague notion of an official act. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 25 points 6 months ago* (2 children) Which by DEFINITION, would not include Un-Constitutional behavior. No violation of the Constitution could ever be construed as an "Official Act." No SCOTUS had ever put guardrails on the president in almost 250 years, but this SCOTUS reinforced that he has immunity for "Official Acts," and nobody realizes that they just put guardrails on the presidency for the first time. Everybody thinks it gives him immunity for EVERYTHING while he is president, but they specifically said "Official Acts," which would be those outlined in the Constitution. Anything deemed Un-Constitutional, would not be an "Official Act," and he would not have immunity, just like any other citizen. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago Be sure to cite that when they're breaking down your door without a warrant because you posted a meme of Trump online permalink fedilink source parent [–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago Guardrails? I think you should re-read their decision again. They gave him protection because until now even official acts didn't necessarily protect the president. And now, it doesn't matter what illegal thing he does as long as it's part of an official act. ANYTHING. Because as long as it's part of an official act they can't even question it. And they didn't even provide a list of what constitutes an official act. So they literally put the president above all laws provided he can tie it back to some vague notion of an official act. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago Be sure to cite that when they're breaking down your door without a warrant because you posted a meme of Trump online permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago Guardrails? I think you should re-read their decision again. They gave him protection because until now even official acts didn't necessarily protect the president. And now, it doesn't matter what illegal thing he does as long as it's part of an official act. ANYTHING. Because as long as it's part of an official act they can't even question it. And they didn't even provide a list of what constitutes an official act. So they literally put the president above all laws provided he can tie it back to some vague notion of an official act. permalink fedilink source parent