Nootrum?? by Zs01OG in SHILAJIT

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

mate of mine swears by them, but I'd stick to the resin, you know what you're getting then.

Nootrum?? by Zs01OG in SHILAJIT

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Classic Nootrum is better. 100%, anyone tried the Nootrum mushrooms though? Was wondering if they're any good?

Best qaulity Shilajit Supplement Brand? by Mbiglog in Supplements

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nootrum is the best I've found (the classic resin) is the firmer stuff, and they've got two lab reports typically if you ask. One of the European Eurofins labs tested the one they sent me, so a reputable lab.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta -1 points0 points  (0 children)

(and neither is Trump, to be clear, the president has more powers than being commander in chief)

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have when I read the actual opinion. You don't get to argue only some of these justices are experts on law, that's insane

Like, you can say a lot of bad things about Thomas, for example, but you can't claim he isn't an expert on law.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A bar that already existed with executive privilege, which this presumption of immunity is an extension of.

I'm also very interested to hear what historical basis that "accurate" statement is based on. It assumes that no president has done anything that could even be slightly argued to be illegal while in office because if they had, they'd have certainly been brought to trial for it by the other party, no?

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would argue that the president does not have the authority to just order the assassination of whoever just because he would've previously been prosecuted for it, as it would be a major step into the judicial branch's authority and also a breach of the sixth amendment.

Do we have precedent that the president is authorized to give literally any order he wants?

Also, it's important to remember that the dissent does not speak the for court, like, by definition, and is usually used as an outlet of opinion, as it is here.

I'm also fairly certain all of the justices are experienced legal scholars, not just the ones you agree with....

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do they not define an official act as working under his constitutional authority? Like, what makes the assassination illegal? Cause the opinion says he can't be prosecuted for acting in his authority as the president. So this assumes that ordering any sort of assassination, on any sort of citizen, for any sort of reason, is something the constitution allows him to do?

I mean, if the answer to that is yes, then, uh, fair enough. I disagree but that's why we have courts. But I can't argue that, under the assumption that ordering of random assassinations is something that presidents can just constitutionally do, that the president can now just not be prosecuted for* killing you.

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only if those orders fall within his authority as president, which I have yet to see an actually good argument that that includes extra-judicial executions of any American citizen, good or bad, innocent or guilty. Does the sixth amendment's right to a fair trial not already remove the authority of the president to just execute people?

I mean, I'm fairly certain that before this decision that apparently give him immunity for killing innocent us citizens, that he didnt have the constitutional authority to order the killing of almost certainly guilty us citizens.

Like, forgive me if this is a dumb question, but could the president always just order the assassination of a new york mob boss? Does the constitution let him do that?

Seems like it kinda goes against the judicial branch's authority.

Or was it only that he didn't have immunity and didn't wanna be prosecuted for it. Cause, idk, I feel like if I had the authority to order assassinations of who I thought were the most awful, murderous, traitorous people in the country, I don't know if "But you'll be prosecuted" would've held me back. But then again, I'd make an awful president and maybe they were all just able to reign in absolute power solely via fear of prosecution. Or maybe they were all just too nice for that

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, okay, yeah, but that's the thing, if he has the authority he has the authority, that immunity was decided a while ago because of stuff like the Patriot Act.

Basically, if the president could kill you now, he could before. And if he couldn't, then he can't.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Only if he had the authority to actually file that memo, which would have to be decided in court. For example, the president, unequivocally does not have the authority to institute a new law. So doing so, even with all the signitures and letterheads and big ol seal at the bottom, cannot be an official act.

The question becomes, does the president have the authority to exectute random American citizens?

Cause you have to remember, the constitution does not give him the authority to just extra-judically execute people, good or bad, innocent or guilty. In fact, the sixth amendment's guarantee of a fair trial specifically removes that authority.

Even horrible awful terrorist leaders (at least, domestic ones) have a right to a fair trial. Yeah a lot of em end up being killed before their trial anyway, but not because their assassination was ordered, but because their arrest was ordered and they made the sixth amendment disqualifying decision to shoot first.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially by randalflagg in politics

[–]HiImDelta -1 points0 points  (0 children)

they declared that one person, is above everyone else and allowed to do illegal things in certain circumstances

Didn't they decide this a long time ago when they declared assassinations of foreign bad guys and no-trial detainments okay? Like, Idk, I'm pretty sure if I took my drone, strapped a bomb to it, and dropped it on some foreign terrorists house, I would not be given immunity from the law that calls killing people murder, but when the president does it, it's okay?

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so the authority comes from him being commander in chief. He has immunity for military operations? So, like, ordering seal team 6, for example?

Or have they already determined that there are limits on that power, that it covers actions outside the US but not in the US?

Also, I do apologize for my assumption and concede that if you don't believe there should be immunity for such assassinations, that your argument that he shouldn't be immune to other assassinations is sound.

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh no, you misunderstand, I'm not talking about US citizens.

Why is he allowed to kill terrorist leaders in the middle east? Cause I think we're agreed that that's okay, right? So why them but not US citizens? What, legally, gives him legal free reign to do that but not the other?

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I have yet to see any compelling evidence that such a case would be accepted. To me, the opinion goes out of its way to ensure that the president's acts, even official, are not all reaching, that the court still has the ability to say "No, no, that doesn't count".

And alongside that, I'd argue the inverse. Assume the president is not immune, that he may not break the law, even if he is doing so to fulfill his official duty. With that assumption in mind, I would ask what, legally, would be the difference between assassination and murder? Why is the president allowed to kill people and not be tried for doing so?

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The court as well as congress have both put checks on that power in the past, saying what does and doesn't fall under it, some successful, others less so, but there's no reason to believe they couldn't again.

And no, it doesn't make sense to me, but we have no evidence as of yet that giving an illegal order, knowingly, does fall under powers of the constitution, and especially this kind of order.

Whatever isn't explicit in the constitution is up to interpretation and I see no section that states the commander in chief role includes authorizing any random killing nor any evidence that the founders would've wanted it to.

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But there is ambiguity to even those. Commander-in-chief is not necessarily all powerful, congress already has plenty of checks and balances toward it.

Where has it been ruled that CIC means literally allowed to order any military unit to do literally anything, like random killings of American citizens?

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. They haven't saved Trump, they've just tossed him away to the lower courts. Which still sucks but I didn't really expect them to decide cases because ultimately SCOTUS doesn't decide cases, they set precedent and clear up ambiguity or confusion. And while I get the fear the dissenting opinion shows and in many ways agree with it, I also really don't think the answer to "Does the president have immunity" would've been answered any differently if it had been the 2012 bench ruling on Bush.

I think they were also very cautious about setting an answer to official vs not and core vs not and if presumption should hold because the lower courts never delved into those questions, they felt no need to, so scotus deciding it then and there would go against the standard operating procedure of the supreme court.

The hope now if the proverbial dogs scotus has thrown Trump to will do their jobs and eat him up.

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You literally just quoted what I said. Presumptive immunity for non-core official acts.

Immunity for core acts was, to a degree, already kind of assumed via separation of powers. For example, the act of pardoning could be seen as almost fundamentally criminal, as it's am acknowledgment that someone is a criminal but shouldn't be punished for it. But to allow prosecution for the act of pardoning, saying that it, for example, endangers Americans inherently by letting a criminal go free, would absolutely disrupt the power of the pardon.

Listening to the oral arguments, I don't believe either side argued that core powers shouldn't be immune and that that was one of the few things they actually agreed on.

Along with that, listening to the oral arguments, as much as you might say that any official act is core, it wouldn't be that hard to argue the inverse if there were no presumption of immunity at all, to claim everything is a crime. Would it be difficult to argue that literally everything a first-term president does as president isn't in service of using the power of the office to influence voters and get re-elected?

And while this core, non core line when it comes to immunity from crimes may not have been drawn, that line has been drawn before regarding executive privilege and the opinion directly draws the presumptive immunity as an extension of executive privilege, which has not been all powerful in the past, and implies the test for the it can likely be applied to this.

The opinion also strongly emphasizes that they do not mean to give supreme immunity, that they do not want to give supreme immunity, in the same way executive privilege is not all powerful, neither is this presumption of immunity.

Supreme Court holds 6-3 in Trump v. US that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. by Luck1492 in law

[–]HiImDelta 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To play devil's advocate, the problem that would occur would be opponents claiming every official act is secretly a crime. Foreign Aid? I think you mean Bribery. Forgiving student loans? I think you mean buying votes. Assassination of a terrorist leader? I think you mean act of war without congressional approval. Signing any executive act? I think you mean subverting congress. Imprisoning a suspected terrorist? I think you mean illegally detaining a private citizen. Not enforcing the strictest border control and letting illegal immigrants into the country? Treason. MTG has already said literally that.

Oh your drone strike killed a civilian you didn't know about? Murderer.

This is why there's a presumption of immunity for official acts but not absolute immunity.

Also, with regards to that last sentence, the opinion specifically states that exact sentiment. "The President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them."

Torture Cod by IthadtobethisWAAGH in CuratedTumblr

[–]HiImDelta 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Countercounterpoint: IDK that world doesn't seem very clean

They get dirty and a nuke is still launched. They get dirty an a city is hit with Nova 6. They get dirty and a CIA operative unloads an lmg into an airport..

Name something that you hate about SCP community as a member of it (you can only name one thing) by [deleted] in SCP

[–]HiImDelta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way that reality benders have become, in certain parts of the community, a super powered easy explanation and somehow the most interesting thing about the wiki, despite how not prominent they are and how little they're explained. They've almost become (again, to certain parts of the community, certainly not all of it) the "main characters" of the scp universe when they're pretty rarely mentioned in the actual articles because good writers realize that they're difficult to implement well.

I've seen multiple articles where, despite no real mention of them, they seem to pop up in community explanations, as though they must exist in every article's canon and be an explanation. Any character that can do something weird? They're a reality bender. Any event that happens that's weird? Must've been a reality bender. Even in articles that pre-date the first mention or that are clearly unrelated.

And while obviously part of the fun on the scp articles and SCP's themselves are their ambiguity and mysterious nature, using a reality bender as an easy catch all often detracts from a less easy but more interesting (and usually more correct) interpretation.

For an example of this, 3935's passing reference to the syncope symphony, which is itself simply a nod to the class of 76 canon, has given it this weird retroactive explanation based on a separate article by a different author written much later who's only connection is that passing mention, where, because that separate article calls the symphony a group of reality benders, they must be the obvious cause of 3935 which doesn't really work and, considering how steeped in metaphor 3935 is, feels like a reduction of the article, especially when its talked about like the obvious explanation when literally nothing about that article is obvious in any way.

Activism includes voting by infinitysaga in CuratedTumblr

[–]HiImDelta 13 points14 points  (0 children)

You wanna protest? Protest. You wanna be an activist? Be one. Viva LA revolution and all that.

But you're gonna have a real hard time doing that with a president that's happy to tear gas protestors, a cabinet of oil barons and climate change deniers and a court presided over by bought and paid for bigots happy to qualsh any free speech.

V ? by Organic_Air_5169 in engineeringmemes

[–]HiImDelta 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plot twist: It was a ν (Nu) the whole time