this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
6 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15990 readers
2 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this.
Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a good bit, but presenting "drone strike the Supreme Court" as a legitimate option is silly.
If you want a take along those lines but realistic, ask libs why Biden hasn't nationalized the Texas National Guard and torn down the horrific shit we're doing at the border.
It's a bit hyperbolic, sure, but he could easily pack the court, and if Roberts refused to swear in new justices, he could have him arrested. Obama should have done something similar with Garland: when McConnell refused to have a hearing, he should have given a speech about the Senate failing to complete its duties, ordered Roberts to swear Garland in, and then arrested Roberts if he protested the move (along with any other justices who tried to be stubborn). The president has men with guns, and SCOTUS does not, full stop.
Lol packing the court is categorically different than assassinating them.
I agree Democrats should at least be trying to do more (specifically with Obama and Garland), but it's not as simple as you're describing it. At minimum, what you're describing would lose a bunch of Democratic support, and if a bunch of your own party is against you it's ultimately not going to work. Now of course the fact that a bunch of Democrats would defect over this is itself a problem with the party, but that's the reality of the situation. There was no one weird trick that was guaranteed to work, and there are consequences to trying and failing.
It's not "assassination", it's targeted killing, and it's perfectly legal and above board. The Supreme Court said so. The President gets to decide who dies and there's no judicial review possible because it's a "political question".
Master statesman Saddam Hussein had a solution for that specific problem. You get all your party members in a room, demand they pledge personal loyalty to you, and then force the ones who did pledge to shoot the ones that didn't. Bam. Party discipline secured.
I'm not asking for much. Just for the president to exercise the same tactics to control uncooperative democratically elected governments at home that he uses abroad. Biden allegedly couldn't do anything because Manchin and/or Sistema just couldn't be brought to the table for some weird reason. Somehow the guy who controls the army, the intelligence aparatus, the justice department, the DEA, the IRS, and the Post couldn't find any way to make them move even a little teeny weensie bit.
Sounds funny, but it rings quite true. I am not sure with the decisions of the supreme court how one could stop those actions legally.