This isn’t going to “push” people to do anything. They always were going to vote for Le Pen. They just blame the protesters for it because they want them to shut up so they can be shitty and not have anyone make them feel bad about it.
Nearly half of Americans now rate it “very serious,”
Americans are significantly less likely to view prejudice against Muslim people as a very serious problem (33%) than to say prejudice against Jewish people is.
Half of Democrats, compared with 18% of Republicans, say anti-Muslim prejudice is a very serious problem in the U.S., as do 30% of independents.
I’m a raised-catholic-agnostic democrat of mixed European heritage residing in an American east coast city. I barely have an opinion about Jewish people (see below). I have many Jewish friends which means nothing outside of a few weeks in December. I have never in my 45+ years witnessed anti-semitism. What I have observed in the past year is a strong opposition to the Israeli government and its support by the United States (finally). After 9/11, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country was so immense that you could taste it in the air. Not to argue this is inaccurate but I just don’t feel that I live in the same reality as what’s being reported here.
The thing I’ve always considered odd about the Jewish population is the strong connection to a place and people and time whom most have never engaged with. It is what it is and I accept it but it’s unfamiliar to me. And it has absolutely no impact on my perception or opinion of any Jewish persons.
The tribalism and skewed perspectives we’re all capable of needs to be tempered.
Hi, I’m a 47-year-old Jew. I’ve witnessed quite a bit of antisemitism. A lot of it directed at me. I’d rather not bring up the memories to give you examples, but you probably wouldn’t believe me if I did anyway, so I won’t.
It sounds like you live in a fairly liberal area, then, so it makes sense you wouldn’t have personally witnessed much hate against Jewish people. But if you look back in your local news archives, I’m sure you’ll find instances of things like swastikas painted on temples.
When I was in high school, I sat down at the lunch table with entirely new people. We get to taking and learning about one another. Topic turns to religion. I’m Jewish. I say as such.
One of the girls looks at me, thoughtfully.
“You don’t have horns like they said you would”
I’m baffled. I’m almost 14 and had only read about people thinking jews had horns in like, old storybooks.
The test of the lunch table fucking goes off on her.
She’s still thinking. “Guess they lied about jews drinking babies blood then?”
I’m stunned. Blood libel? In 2001???
She was a good kid though. Realized it was lies and changed her world view right then. But still. It’s just. Still happening? It sucks.
I knew a kid in high school who came up to me almost every single day and told me with a big smile that I was going to hell because my people killed Jesus.
Then one day, he came up to me and looked a little sad and said, “we got a new pastor at my church. He says Jews are the chosen people and you’re going to heaven.”
I didn’t think it was worth ever telling him I didn’t believe either place existed.
And while we’re on school, my daughter’s right wing fuck of a sixth grade teacher just started to my daughter about Jews and Judaism unprompted one day. My daughter is half-Jewish, doesn’t ever talk about it, and she’s an atheist. She was really confused how she knew. I know exactly how she “knew.” She took one look at me, saw the nose and the hair, and made a lucky assumption. I might as well have come in with a yarmulke and prayer shawl.
And although I cannot prove it, I suspect that’s why she started getting singled out for little things here and there that other kids weren’t singled out on at all. I had definitely been in that position with my own teachers, so maybe I was being too sensitive on that part, but it felt like it.
I don’t look very Jewish, or so the girl at the table said, so guess I’m lucky there?
Later on (years later) had a fundamentalist Christian at work tell me it was good I’m Jewish because we need to go to Israel to finish the book. (This was awhile ago and exact wording didn’t stick as I was busy working)
She didn’t like it when I said I’m never moving there. Guess it fucks with gods plans if my stupid ass stays in America my entire life.
I am Jewish and I am concerned, although the harassment I’ve gotten so far has not been much and only online. It is, at least in part, Israel’s fault by suggesting that it’s the only place for Jews despite the fact that fewer Jews live in Israel than Jews who don’t live in Israel.
I do not support Israel’s apartheid or genocide. I don’t even really want to visit the place unless it was part of a Middle Eastern archaeology tour or something. And yet, more than once, at least once I can recall on Lemmy, I have had to not just justify that (in the same “but do you condemn Hamas” manner), my justification was not accepted.
One person here on Lemmy, a person who I’m fairly certain was not a Jew themselves, actually declared me not Jewish because I live in the U.S. Which is just another form of antisemitism.
Regardless, I’m not apparently allowed, by a significant number of people, to identify as a Jew and not support Israel. And that includes a significant number of Jews who I have to deal with as an internal problem. But at least they aren’t also saying overtly antisemitic things.
Now… that said:
This goes way beyond Israel. A significant number of white people (by no means a majority) do not consider Jews white. Jews are an “other.” You need look no further than Elon Musk’s “you have said the actual truth” reply to the person saying that Jews oppressed white people. It’s “the actual truth” because I’m not white to someone like Elon.
I’m white. I benefit from every bit of white privilege every other white American benefits from. No cop is ever going to pull me over on suspicion of being white. No hiring manager is going to turn me down because I have a name that doesn’t sound white. My skin is practically lighter than Morticia Adams’. But to Elon, and others, I am not white.
And all of this concerns me. A lot. It didn’t used to much. Then Charlottesville happened and I found out that “Jews will not replace us” was considered by a lot of people to be an acceptable thing to chant in America.
a person who I’m fairly certain was not a Jew themselves, actually declared me not Jewish because I live in the U.S. Which is just another form of antisemitism.
Antisemitism (or, more accurately, ‘Judeophobia’) is being bigoted against someone because they are Jewish. What that person said to you was not antisemitism, it was just stupid.
Overusing and misusing (sometimes intentionally- à la Israel) that accusation dilutes it’s severity and makes people more likely to handwave actual incidents of discrimination and bigotry, which is not good my Squid.
You certainly do not get to tell me what I consider to be a bigoted slur against me.
And don’t make it sound like I’ve never experienced worse. I’ve experienced far worse.
But yeah, sure, I own a home so that makes it all fine (I don’t own a home, my non-Jewish wife does).
Edit: By the way, trying to invalidate my experiences by only addressing one small issue in my post and acting like that means it’s all in my head is fucking rude.
You ok? You jumped straight into imagined victim mode. I never said or implied any of the things you’re defending yourself against, and I don’t believe they are true.
I read and generally like your comments, and I don’t think you think that your personal experience invalidates statistics. Are you stressed out or something?
And note that they don’t give him his immunity now. They 100% will when it makes it back up to them, but they can do half the ruling now to blow off a little steam and then when they declare insurrection and espionage official acts people will already be resigned to it. Same reason they leaked the Roe ruling. They’re worried about riots and being lynched if they give people enough of a focal point to organize.
That’s okay, it will clearly be fake just like COVID and it will also be over in a few months like Elon predicted about COVID and you can fix it with horse paste and a UV light up your ass, so you don’t need a mask or anything like the COVID vaccine that killed everyone who got it within a year, as predicted.
It depends when it launches and goes… viral (sorry…). If there’s a dem in office, it’s a real pandemic and we aren’t doing nearly enough and 10,000 people are dying every second, you lib monsters!! If it’s a repub in office it’s fake news poopvirus and why are you trampling on my poopeating freedums??
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive 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.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
This is changing things. Vertical integration of a key supplier isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
And this is sort of like if GM woke up one day and decided to buy back Allison Transmission. Sprit was part of Boeing. It got sold off by bad leadership. Sprit never landed many other contracts past Boeing. Boeing is now buying them back to reintegrate a piece of old Boeing leadership never should have sold.
“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
I don’t even understand this ruling. He isn’t being prosecuted for official acts or exercising his core constitutional powers. The president doesn’t have the constitutional power to commit election fraud or incite an insurrectionist mob or mishandle classified documents.
I’ll wait for a good legal breakdown to come to firm conclusions, but it sounds like SCOTUS found a way to make a ruling that drags Trump’s trials out even more. They have to separate the acts that have immunity from the ones that don’t.
This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.
It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!
It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.
It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.
Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.
It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.
I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
You’re missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they’re kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They’re ret-2-go but the Supreme’s did their job of punting this until at least October, since that’s when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It’s fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.
Oh, ALSO:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.
But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.
Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.
The guidance says:
Courts cannot consider motive
An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law
Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ
Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)
Engagement with private parties is not an official act
Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not
Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist
So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.
The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.
I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Of course that’s only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don’t care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it’ll come back up and they’ll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
The main thing you’re missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They’ll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives’ whims.
This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.
Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won’t come up again.
Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.
“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
He’s not being prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers or official acts. He’s being prosecuted for election fraud, inciting an insurrectionist mob and mishandling classified documents. None of those are core constitutional powers and they clearly can’t be official acts.
Edit: I just love this part-
Without immunity, Trump’s lawyer said, sitting presidents would face “blackmail and extortion” by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.
Trump just faces blackmail and extortion from his political allies. Like Vladimir Putin.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he’s alright.
It’ll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
That’s just due process of law. The lower court can’t just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
Devil’s Advocate: It’s been needing to be determined since fucking Nixon left office, and our entire government has been waffling about it for 70 years, because it’s a question they don’t actually want answered. It’s only convenient to them now as a reason to give Trump a legal time-out so he can make it to the election without more indictments.
The District Court in question has already defined official versus unofficial acts, which is part of why the SC released this so late on fucking purpose. Because even though the DC is ready to go with their findings, they’ll have to wait until October to kick it back up the chain to the Supreme Court when Trump inevitably appeals.
That’s the . I think it goes a little farther than “hope” with these guys. They think they can manifest reality.
We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do’.
In some ways, you can almost see why trying to “erase” bad ideas is intoxicating, since humans seem endlessly drawn to them.
It’s like in tech circles, the joke goes that some Sci-Fi writer creates a horrible invention and includes a warning “DO NOT BUILD THE TORMENT NEXUS” and that warning, repeatedly, goes ignored. People are like “but we could make good profit from the Torment Nexus!”
AI is a good example. “If we don’t make the terrible AI, someone else will, so we have to make the Torment Nexus, errr, I mean AI.”
But trying to stop all these bad ideas is just Fahrenheit 451 with extra steps.
I think the Soviets and the space race with the USA would prove that the “We have to build it faster, first!” isn’t just a capitalist thing.
Capitalism incentivizes it, absolutely. To be clear, I’m not making some “it’s human nature” argument, culture plays a huge role. Capitalist culture influences it greatly, but I think humans “racing” to achieve something before another does is outside the scope of just capitalism.
Some of the evidence that Jack Smith has put together involve some form of Trump’s official capacity. for instance, the Times notes that one of the points of the prosecution was that Trump tried to get Jeffrey Clark installed as acting AG in the days before Jan 6, presumably because he would go along with the coup. One of the findings of the Court is that appointments like that are within the President’s direct duties, and can’t be used as evidence against him, even if it can be proven that the appointment was made to directly piss on the Constitution Trump swore to protect.
The Times also notes that Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.
Because presiding over the counting of the votes is one of the very few duties the Constitution allocates to the VP, so is covered under this new doctrine. He has the absolute right to conduct that how he sees fit, without regard to whether he is upholding his oath to the Constitution or not, and any conversations he had with the President are part of that duty, and similarly protected. If it turns out he is not upholding that oath, the only remedy is impeachment. (And finding 67 Senators to agree to convict.)
because they need to determine if he was acting officially.
this was already ruled on, reelection campaign is NOT an official capacity thing PERIOD. This move is nothing but another delay to ensure this shit falls on a date post-election
Delaying until after the election was the main point yeah. He did get a couple other goodies from it though to my understanding. Presumption of immunity and not being able to admit testimony or communications of the president and his staff being the big ones from what I’m reading.
But absolutely Remand is the big prize for Trump here. Having the case remanded back to the lower courts all but guarantees that it won’t be concluded before the election. Hopefully it doesn’t entirely gut the other prosecutions as well but I don’t have a lot of faith that it isn’t going to basically kill the other cases.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.
Right, and why do the questions “can a president officially commit election fraud” and “can a president officially incite a violent mob” and “can a president officially mishandle classified documents?” need to be determined? The answers have already been determined. They are all no.
Constitutionally defined roles have absolute immunity (e.g., pardons). Other “official acts” are presumed to have immunity, but what acts are official is not well defined and as written can be very expansive. Since the Court gets to decide each one on a case by case basis, it will presumably apply more expansively to fascist allies and more narrowly to opponents. All Trump needs to do is present a flimsy excuse for how he was “protecting the election” or “making a political speech as president”. The liberal judges are correctly ringing alarm bells. “Official acts” isn’t a guardrail.
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
This is how fucked we are. Right here.
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
So nevermind all that evidence you have of them planning it out in the open. Inadmissible in trial!
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.