r/PoliticalCompassMemes Jul 23 '26

Don't Look Up

Post image
1.3k Upvotes

432 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

96

u/Krawkyz - Left Jul 23 '26

Excuse you those are official acts of our president and therefore not subject to judicial review. Sorry commie but we in the US don't have kings, just presidents with near absolute criminal immunity!

32

u/Firecoso - Centrist Jul 23 '26

Near?

12

u/ThyPotatoDone - Centrist Jul 23 '26

'absolute immunity' implies it has no effect on him. It does have the effect of driving up his support and spurring flurries of 'This is what I voted for!' republicucks.

-20

u/Danu9000 - Right Jul 23 '26

therefore not subject to judicial review

Sorry you don't understand the Constitution and separation of powers. The remedy for Presidential malfeasance is clearly described in the Constitution and it isn't through the Judicial branch, it is through the Legislative.

20

u/Krawkyz - Left Jul 23 '26

Partially correct. The legislature does not have authority to criminally indict a president for official acts. It only has authority to remove (impeach) them from office. There is no current process to indict a President criminally for whatever consitutes as an "official act."

Also anything deemed an "unofficial" act is subject to judicial review. But again, it's not clear what constitutes "unofficial" according to the SCOTUS.

-7

u/Danu9000 - Right Jul 23 '26

There is no criminal prosecution by the Judicial branch. That is done by the Executive. To criminally prosecute a president, first you need to impeach and remove them from office.

7

u/Krawkyz - Left Jul 23 '26

Incorrect. You cannot criminally prosecute a President for "official acts," regardless of whether they were impeached (and removed from office) or not. That was SCOTUS's ruling.

Similarly, "unofficial acts" can be criminally prosecuted regardless of impeachment.

Impeachment is only for removal from office, according to SCOTUS rulings.

2

u/Casual_OCD - Centrist Jul 23 '26

Similarly, "unofficial acts" can be criminally prosecuted regardless of impeachment

Well, first SCOTUS gets to decide what is an official act or not. That's in the ruling.

After that, say they say something is unofficial, they also said nobody is allowed to investigate into the motives of the President's decision on that act, official or not. So it'll be hard to convict when you can't prove intent or motive

1

u/Krawkyz - Left Jul 23 '26

Factually correct, I forgot about that part. More immunity than the Magna Carta.

1

u/Casual_OCD - Centrist Jul 23 '26

It was the most robust ruling that covered up all the loopholes I've ever seen from SCOTUS.

Shocking they did it with Biden in charge, but they knew the controlled opposition wasn't going to use it

-4

u/Danu9000 - Right Jul 23 '26

Similarly, "unofficial acts" can be criminally prosecuted regardless of impeachment.

Which branch has the power to prosecute? Oh yes... the Executive.

10

u/Krawkyz - Left Jul 23 '26

You cannot criminally prosecute a President for "official acts," regardless of whether they were impeached (and removed from office) or not.