373

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

I don’t understand how he can make changes to the Supreme Court using this new Supreme Court ruling. My understanding is that change requires Congress

  1. Just do it.

  2. Have anyone who tries to stop you (including Congresspeople who would vote against it) killed.

  3. Call it an "official act."

That's legal now.

[-] UsernameHere@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

What about the voters that are voting Biden because they don’t want a coup or assassinations? Biden would lose all those votes. Then how does he win the election?

[-] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago
  1. Biden replaces the treasonous court by any means necessary.
  2. The Democratic Party "strongly condemns" his "rogue" actions and chooses another candidate.
  3. Anti-coup and anti-assassination voters vote for that candidate ('cause who're they gonna pick otherwise, Trump? LOL).

Obviously it's ethically horrific, but (from utilitarian and game theory perspectives) it's the least-bad option I can think of right now.

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Nope. That is not within the duties of the president. Declaring something official doesn't make it official.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You say that as if it wouldn't be a moot point once SCOTUS has five or six vacancies on it all at once, along with who knows how many in the Senate.

That's how power actually works, you know. Don't believe me? Watch Saddam Hussein's 1979 purge to see how it goes down.

That's the kind of power that exists here in the US now, thanks to the fascist Supreme Court. If Biden doesn't use it against itself in order to destroy it, the next Republican President will use it to consolidate his own rule much the same way Saddam did.

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Is Saddam Hussein in the room with us now?

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

What a useless non-response.

You can be in denial all you want, but the factual reality is that, since this SCOTUS ruling, the US is an autocracy now. Practically speaking, the only way for it to stop being such in the short term is for the autocrat (i.e., Biden) to forcibly change it back.

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

That's because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7

[-] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Well golly gee, mister, if I'm so ignorant can you please explain to me how I'm wrong? Be specific, now!

If not, then by all means, please continue with your point-free ad-hominem attacks. It's entertaining! 🍿

[-] Akuden@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago

Absolutely not. You're insane, you wouldn't consider anything I'd say.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Oh, by the way: no, I'm not insane. SCOTUS is insane. I'm just discussing the implications of their insane decision.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

LOL, you're just saying that because you can't actually refute my point and you know it.

Prove me wrong, I dare you.

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
373 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3142 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS