That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. 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. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

“Many experts” isn’t someone I can talk with or argue against. They’re just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.

Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

• Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

• Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

It’s called Sodium in English because an English chemist Sir Humphrey Davy discovered it & named it “Sodium” He was able to isolate it via separation of caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) and therefore named it after the caustic soda “soda-ium”. A few years later, a German chemist (Ludwig Wilhelm Gilbert) was able to isolate it and named it “Natronium” Just under a decade later, Jöns Jacob Berzelius coined the term “Natrium” as he felt the name “Natronium” was too lengthy to catch on.

As to exactly why the earlier term was not respected is likely due to nationalism. During the earlier 1800’s a lot of countries were desperately trying to take claim for various rapid advancements in chemistry, physics, mathematics, and medicine. Getting to have the name that “your guy” coined was largely bent around national pride.

10/10 chain jerking

Hackers mad

Hackers mad

Hackers mad

Then Paradox was developing it. They own the studio. Who else is going to build the game? An executive?

I am sure that everyone would agree that Paradox owns/developed/published Europa Universalis 4… But that was made by “Paradox Tinto” or Stellaris was “Paradox Development Studio”… The publishing wing of Paradox doesn’t develop games. Obviously. But I don’t understand why thats in any way relevant to the discussion. Paradox (the company, not specifically the publishing wing) was 100% responsible for the development, the testing, and the publishing of Life by You. They built it, they took it down.

AI didn’t write this. AI would never write this. It’s outrageously wrong to an extreme degree. Making dangerous and false claims have happened on occasion with LLM’s (Often due to being fed various prompts until the user twists it into saying it), but an AI wouldnt write something like that, come up with a fake graph, and include a made up song (!?!) from the beetles about it. The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers” and someone believes it, it doesn’t speak to Obama being dangerous, it speaks to that person being incredibly dense.

So… Paradox tectonic is not related to paradox…? Are you sure?

Hopefully your generation will be the last that can’t tell an obvious shitpost from reality.

That’s why I play DotA 😎

(Yes, this is a cry for help)

He didn’t spend half of the meme writing about the hours spent on forums trying to get each game to work.

It’s some tiktok cringe thing about autism being a quirky and fun trait instead of a challenging mental disorder.

Would someone really do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?

The comparison to modern travel is a bit off though… The vast, VAST, majority of humanity would never travel further than a few villages over in their entire lifetime. The ‘mixing’ of cultures isn’t nearly as pronounced as you’re suggesting. Consider that even medieval “France” was made up of over 6 distinct cultures with often different languages.

I once clicked an ad for syrinscape because it intrigued me. I ended up using it. Loyal customer ever since.

Yeah. I’ve had exactly 0 issues in the past decade. The only people I tend to get op’s complaints from are usually lamenting that they can’t use the n-word or hate on marginalized groups anymore and hide behind “it’s a joke lmao”. Op was too vague to actually say what exactly they mean by sanitization, but it IS eerily similar.

If you read what he talks about further down, you’ve built out that communication mapping for autistic-nt communication due to your circumstances (manager of autistic people). You can easily understand them. As a husband of an autistic wife though, I would say that it seems like nt people have a dramatically easier time building out that autistic-nt map than autistic people have building it. She still regularly misunderstands me and other people (unless I’m talking to her directly) but I understand her very easily even when she’s talking to her autistic friends.