But will they be able to actually force him to follow their orders for a change? There needs to be criminal consequences for presidents who violate the Supreme Court.
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
657 readers
17 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There needs to be criminal consequences for presidents who violate the Supreme Court.
This has to be the most satirical thing I read this year.
US Supreme Court decided the opposite to be true.
The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for con-duct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
A conviction by the Senate is the only legal way to hold a rogue president accountable. The founding fathers foresaw the branches of government vying for more power, but they did not expect a congress to work with an executive against the interests of the people.
I know, and it needs to be fixed. I mean it won't be, but it needs to be.
What did they do, give millions in their welfare funds to a rich retired NFL star?
Oh wait, that wasn’t a blue state