The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.
Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.
I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.
Doesn't matter if it works, it's trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we'll keep fucking trying till we do.
Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.
AOC is earning my vote.
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public...
We literally haven't even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don't understand what's happened to people.
People as a whole are more politically aware than I've ever seen, but we're just wasting it.
We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.
We actually don't.
A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.
It's literally that easy to take over the party.
Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.
If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.
It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.
By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.
If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.
But we didn't.
Until we finally do, shit won't change.
We should have been in streets for Gore.
We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can't fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that's still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.
The stereotypical nerd.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn't sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn't even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn't even let it run down to the final vote.
But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it
Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn't in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn't, same with most of the current Dem leadership.
So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn't have Gore's back either. And Gore wasn't confident enough to try it without the party.
It's crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
We've had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.
I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn't disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn't disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn't stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)
What we don't have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say "see we aren't all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!" (Because there's only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…
We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.
I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.
I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.
Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.
That's the thing though, with the Republicans in charge there will NEVER be a vote on this. They won't allow it.
Yeah. But it's provocative, it gets the people going.
That translates to more voters and more small donors.
Two things that are kind of important 4 months before a general election.
People will call this sort of thing performative since the legislation will be dead in the water, but you're spot on. An important part of politics is virtue signaling. You're telling your supporters what you stand for and that you're at least trying.
Whether it's progressive or moderates doing so, it's an important political tool, and sometimes the only tool at their disposal. Showing people you're willing to fight, even if you know you're going to lose, is a big deal.
Is it terrible I always think of Kanye too when I hear it?
George Bush doesn't care about black people.
The minority party has seized control by eroding the foundation of democracy. The sad part is that most people don't even realize how fucked we are.
No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.
Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:
Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.
Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.
They're already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.
We want them to do option 1, but know they are going to choose option 2.
When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They'll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don't stand up to fascists.
All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.
George Lucas
Didn't Caesar literally march his army into Rome? 'crossing the rubicon' - and then there was a thing called the roman civil war
Yeah. There was also the title, literally "dictator", that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.
Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.
200 years ago though, now you'll get shit stomped by the military. The 2a thing is honestly a joke.
It wasn't a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.
But the president has the power to tell the army "Don't do shit" in complete impunity.
Option 2 is suicide. I guess that's it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.
The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even mind since they're the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it's a small price to pay for democracy.
Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.
Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.
Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren't supported by the Constitution!
Whoopsie.
Biden should use the Emergency Alert text system to let every American know what this ruling means, and what’s at stake.
Or, at least break into broadcast programming with an address to inform everyone.
This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!
Short of federal troops literally kicking down doors as oFFiCiAl aCtS it won't happen. The Republicans want their dictatorship and they're not going to vote against it.
AOC should team up with King Joe to make it happen.
We deserve a fresh, genuinely impartial court with term limits - three decades ago.
You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.
Why does Biden not simply EAT the Justices as an Official Presidential Act?
Because eating poisonous animals is dangerous and we all know that Thomas and Kavanaugh have the most toxic blood possible while being able to pass as human from a medical point of view.
This one is from Omicron-Persei 8
Like seriously, I'm tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It's better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.
think you Americans are beyond a peaceful protest at this point, right now you need a revolution. you are quite literally 4 months away from a potential dictatorship.
So you can have a revolution with a peaceful protest. The problem is that requires a general strike to go with it to entirely cripple the economy. And Americans are obviously still too fat and happy to even do that.
Good luck with that, the fans of the potential dictators have most of the guns, law enforcement is packed with fascists, etc...
(Although I agree.)
You could get involved in campaigning for a Democrat running in a local senate race, actually get involved in politics and work for change
Hey don’t leave out Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush! IMO they have better politics than even AOC but they just don’t have as much name recognition.
For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they're always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.
Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.
Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can't get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.
Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it's too important:
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
Cause democrats are not a unified faction.
Democrats are basically 15 different political parties shoved under the same umbrella.
Keep in mind that kremlin still runs massive campaigns to make you think Biden will loose and is unable to run the country.
But he is not alone, this is not a monarchy, there is a full team behind him to make great things for the country.
Of course the Kremlin, and Israel as well as other state actors are; but the obvious question then becomes — what is the Biden campaign actually doing to offset that effect? They are losing the battle and time is running out.
This is all easily remedied. Biden just needs to put out a bounty on Trump's head. Totally legal move.
Yep, totally official move of the president covered by immunity, if I'm reading the Court right!
It's what Trump's lawyers specifically argued for. It's not a hypothetical or exaggeration at all.
While I understand what you mean, we also have to recognize that doing that would 100% give trump the election. Splitting the votes is not what we want to do.
With all due respect if we're speaking in terms of certainty, I am 100% certain that Biden will give Trump the election—and I guarantee I have more evidence to support that statement than anyone does to the opposite conclusion. Staying this course is a disaster in slow-motion. The Titanic already hit the iceberg and now we're just sinking for 4 months straight. We either jump ship now, or we are going to lose, or we start gearing up for 2028 now.
I completely disagree. While the debate felt disastrous, there is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
The worst possible thing we can do right now is just jump ship this close to an election. Biden has one bad debate, and is fine the day after(another thing people conveniently love to ignore) and we're just supposed to restart. What if the new candidate does poorly at the second debate? We just pick another person again?
Biden beat Trump last time. Trump has only grown weaker and lost support, while Biden has been extremely successful. Everyone is upset about the debate performance, but it will not be even close to as impactful as people are convincing themselves it will be.
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
There is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
Biden took this debate because he is currently losing and needed to break the stagnant, steadily-declining polls.
Biden's performance is worse than his 2020 run and in fact, worse than Hillary's losing run in 2016 by every single metric I can find.
There is a MASSIVE amount of risk that Biden's condition deteriorates more rapidly between now and November, and following the convention there is no more backing out.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
TBF, It’s difficult to copy-paste MSNBC talking points about why Biden should stay in the race.
Trump has only grown weaker and lost support,
You understand that is so far removed from reality it might as well be a Fox headline.
We are 100% giving Trump the election now on our present course. Biden is Hillary with worse numbers.
DO IT! DO IT NOW! You have to show them the checks and balances. There is no god king, there is no one that is not accountable for their actions. Impeach every single one that was nominated by him. Illegitimate court.
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
Cuz hes a milquetoast coward. He shoulda packed the court day one.
*unpacked, by expanding it to 13 minimum, 15 for good measure. But yes.
The president cannot impeach them unilaterally, and is explicitly out of his power.
He could, however, potentially send them to a blacksite as a prisoner or conveniently kill them as part of that arrest. They could claim collusion with domestic terror groups, espionage, corruption, etc, as very plausible justification for arrest, and that would probably qualify as official duties, at least how this SCOTUS would classify the same actions if executed by a republican president.
I mean... in his place I'd probably make them think I was going to do it to see if it would change their mind.
Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.
I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:
Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.
Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).
Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.
Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.
Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it'll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.
Congress shouldn't be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.
(edit) I can't believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following "official acts" or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.
While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.
Yes please.
The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.
You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.
Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.
Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I'm not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.
The Article itself stays within the scope of the Executive Branch but the Section itself just says:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Likely, if Congress tried, it would be argued that the scope is only the Executive Branch.
Article 3's scope is the Judicial branch but says in Section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
However, Samuel Chase who was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice by George Washington and confirmed by the Senate was impeached by Congress in 1804, and other federal judges (some having life-time appointments apparently) were dissolved.
Samuel Chase ultimately was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 however.
Who would decide tho who can impeach Supreme Court Justice? Because it can't be SCOTUS as that would be deciding in your own case and you guys also don't have a separate constitutional tribunal
Congress impeaches, so Congress would decide. In the case of Justice Chase, he also argued against being able to be impeached but was anyway.
Article 2, section 4 clear says "and all civil officers." It specifies president and vice president likely because they were getting away from a monarchy and wanted to specify they aren't above the law, but it clearly should apply to any federal civil officers.
Does this actually matter if the Supreme Court is ruling in the constitutionality of how accountable they are to other's power? Probably not. This supreme court at least will always argue in favor of serving themselves. I don't know how that plays out at that point.
Not unless Biden uses his new powers to execute all his political enemies.
Hell, people in the military just need to go on and execute the offending members of the supreme court, the house, etc., then just say "the president told us to do so".
Voting gives us no control with the current party system. We need ranked choice voting, end campaigns and advertising. Only 1 website will have the candidates and their platforms, tax funded only, anyone who wants to run can run and ranked choice voting will make the actual most popular acceptable candidate win.
The president should just get rid of the supreme court justices he doesn't want. He can legally do that now bc of the supreme court
As long as you say "I declare official act!" before you do it, you're good.
"Sorry, Mrs. Thomas, but your trip on the billionaire's super yacht has been cancelled and you and your husband are coming with us--by official act and order of King Joe."
You go get 'em, AOC. Personally, I'd like to see the Declaration of Independence rewritten so that it doesn't give this false impression about our form of government and kings.
They should not only be impeached, but charged with 340 million counts of violating the civil rights of the American people (multiplied by dozens of rulings). Life in prison for those criminals.
She wont be able to do anything. The reason supreme court decided to move forward with this decision is because they are 100% confident that Trump will win presidency and republicans will control both the house and the Senate. After seeing Biden in the last debate, I believe they are right.
Maybe instead of using your energy to attack Biden you use it to support your local democrat in their senate run
Unless you actually just want Trump
Or — just maybe — the guy is able to judge reality for what it is. We’re getting trump unless there’s some black swan. I’m voting Brandon, but he’s a fucking disaster right now and the swing state polls are grim as fuck. Best case scenario he fucks off to the next life and we get a new nominee.
Before you accuse me of wanting trump, check my fucking comment history.
Thanks.
I'm going to vote for Biden. I will vote for a used condom before I vote for Trump. But it is my opinion that we already lost the election. We must point fingers and hold the responsible parties accountable, otherwise we will make the same mistake again and again and again...
Maybe the Supreme Court knows something we dont.... for example some folks on the electoral college having been promised bribes... I mean "gratuities" for voting Trump in no matter what the popular vote is.
I'm not saying that's definitely happened, but at this rate the corruption in our government has gone so far it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Especially with the absolute crock of shit that's been pouring out of the Supreme Courts rulings and how it's conveniently setting them up for this, or something similar.
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time. That's the whole point of different branches of government.
If SCOTUS made the decision after seeing Trump and Biden debate, or knowing Republicans will control both houses, then they aren't doing their job as they should. There's a reason why juries are encouraged not to watch TV or media that would cloud their decision, and the same should apply to judges.
People forget the bloody whole point of checks and balance!
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time.
Yeah sure, except that they clearly aren't. So the question is what do we do now?
Cool story. Now figure out how to stop them other than 'vote'. Cause we know that's just kicking the can down the road.
They didn't forget: they explictly and knowingly realized they could abuse the checks and balances and there would be no consequences. And they have so far been right.
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time.
then they aren’t doing their job as they should.
There were times in my life when I was pretty much a functioning alcoholic. If you think that the supreme court has even a shred of decency left, then I want to drink what you are drinking. I don't think I ever got that drunk it my life.
Man, this country has turned into a fat joke. I'm just done
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Democrat from New York wrote that the court has become "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control" and that it's "up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy.
It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
In a statement after the ruling, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Democrats would "engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."
But the act of filing impeachment articles represents a significant escalation in Democrats' efforts to exercise greater oversight over the high court, which has faced numerous ethics scandals in recent years while issuing a spate of conservative opinions that have upended decades of precedent, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The last (and only) time a Supreme Court Justice has been impeached was 220 years ago, when Samuel Chase survived an effort to remove him in 1804 over his handling of two politically sensitive trials.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm a little confused. Isn't their ruling just a deferral back to lower courts?
They didn't grant him absolute immunity, they just reaffirmed the incredibly broad language in Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.
They're not giving him immunity for everything he did as president, they just aren't interested in being the authority that decides what is or isn't an "official act". They are letting lower courts decide that.
If there's something I'm missing here, I would love to know, but it feels like people are misunderstanding this decision en masse.
How do you square your take with the dissenting judges that say it effectively makes the president king?
I guess I just don't understand Sotomayor's response. She says that Trump got the immunity he asked for, but that's not true. He was asking for everything he did as president to be considered an "official act", and they deferred to the lower courts.
It doesn't appear that anything actually changed. I am assuming I am wrong on that, but none of the articles I have read so far have answered that question. There are just a lot of assertions that he was granted absolute immunity, which doesn't match the language of the court's opinion.
I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered "official acts", especially as we draw the line between Trump's presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I'm just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.
I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered "official acts", especially as we draw the line between Trump's presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I'm just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.
Well, that's exactly the problem that has everyone up in arms here. They have made this ruling but conveniently failed to rule on what constitutes an "official" act. Therefore whenever a major ruling has to be done about this, they can decide at that time whether an act was official or not based on what flavor of president they're ruling for or against, and until then the lower courts can take the heat off the SCOTUS directly by just ruling that everything Trump has ever done is legal because he was president once.
It's a very transparently partisan ruling, setting the stage for further partisan ruling in the future by being extremely vague about what their ruling actually is. This ruling boils down to "the president is allowed to do anything he wants when we say so, and is subject to rule of law only when we say so, and whether we say so will be determined after the acts in question." In this way the conservative-packed supreme court can easily enable a conservative president or trap a liberal one.
What it does set up though is an official legal stand to say that the supreme Court gets to decide what's "official". Meaning they can decide that all Trump's actions are official and all of Biden's (or whatever dem president) are not
It allows for immunity to any "official acts" by the president while they are in office and does not define what an "unofficial" act would be. So if an action is challenged from the lower courts it'll end up at the supreme court where they will deem it official or unofficial.
Which brings the onus of dethroning a king president up to the Congress to impeach them. Which has never happened. However, we have impeached a supreme court justice in the past.
They did rule that you can't question a president about his motivations or reasons for any particular act when determining whether it was official or not. Only whether the act itself qualifies as official or not, regardless of the reason behind it.
That's like letting your oldest kid do whatever he wants, and after punching your other two little kids and eating their candy you let him figure out if he should be punished and you let him punish himself.
The statement:
This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.
Doesn't matter if it works, it's trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we'll keep fucking trying till we do.
Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.
AOC is earning my vote.
Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public...
We literally haven't even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don't understand what's happened to people.
People as a whole are more politically aware than I've ever seen, but we're just wasting it.
We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They've had a head start on us, so it's going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they've created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.
We actually don't.
A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.
It's literally that easy to take over the party.
Obama just didn't do it because he didn't need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.
If he'd have rebuilt it, we'd have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn't have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.
It's not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.
By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH's delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.
If we'd have had the fight then, we'd have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.
But we didn't.
Until we finally do, shit won't change.
We should have been in streets for Gore.
We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can't fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that's still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.
The stereotypical nerd.
Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn't sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn't even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn't even let it run down to the final vote.
But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it
Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn't in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn't, same with most of the current Dem leadership.
So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn't have Gore's back either. And Gore wasn't confident enough to try it without the party.
It's crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.
He pushed right up to the deadline. Like, Bush v Gore was decided literally hours before the state deadline to certify the vote.
We've had this sort of situation before, FDR was radically progressive on a lot of policy decisions, he made great strides ad pulling us out of the Great Depression, leading us through world war 2, dramatically reduced the wealth disparity and was so popular with the voting public he was elected 4 times. Then the politically connected wanted to make sure that kind of presidency never happened again, so they paid to get the political machinery altered to suit their needs, term limits were introduced, influential think tanks were created to push favorable public policy and install favorable political assets, launched propaganda campaigns to sway public perception and consolidated economic power.
I agree that a single properly progressive president can do a lot to make things better, and a president who actually wields power can make some very important structural changes within the political party but it doesn't disassemble the political machinery that led us to our current situation in the first place. It doesn't disassemble the vast propaganda networks and think tanks, it doesn't stop the flow of dark money into politician pockets. All these positive changes can be undone if the next guy that comes in is a shitbag.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
During the Hillary vs Bernie times, I was talking with a Bernie supporter in a bar. He told me that the establishment Dems/DNC would promote Hitler himself before they promote an anti-establishment candidate.
Back then I thought he was a case of mentally sick person making it to the bar and having too much drink. As time passes I agree with him more and more.
We have a party entirely dedicated to the ownership class with literally 0 internal conflict, and we have a party almost entirely dedicated to the ownership class with some internal conflict (the squad.)
What we don't have is a party that gives one solitary fuck about the labor class and actively fights those that get too close to real power. The squad is a useful token to point to and say "see we aren't all corpo fascists! We allowed them to exist!" (Because there's only like 5 of them so they have no power whatsoever)
I'd be happy if we just had an administration where no one in the DOJ, State Department or Cabinet quits in disgust. The last time that happened was what, Bush Sr.?
I want AOC with vice president Bernie.
That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.
I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.
Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn't just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she's got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.
If we're having elections in 28 and she isn't a candidate. Something is wrong.
AOC will not survive after Trump wins.
That's the thing though, with the Republicans in charge there will NEVER be a vote on this. They won't allow it.
Yeah. But it's provocative, it gets the people going.
That translates to more voters and more small donors.
Two things that are kind of important 4 months before a general election.
People will call this sort of thing performative since the legislation will be dead in the water, but you're spot on. An important part of politics is virtue signaling. You're telling your supporters what you stand for and that you're at least trying.
Whether it's progressive or moderates doing so, it's an important political tool, and sometimes the only tool at their disposal. Showing people you're willing to fight, even if you know you're going to lose, is a big deal.
Is it terrible I always think of Kanye too when I hear it?
George Bush doesn't care about black people.
The minority party has seized control by eroding the foundation of democracy. The sad part is that most people don't even realize how fucked we are.
No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.
Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:
Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.
Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.
They're already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.
We want them to do option 1, but know they are going to choose option 2.
When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They'll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don't stand up to fascists.
George Lucas
Didn't Caesar literally march his army into Rome? 'crossing the rubicon' - and then there was a thing called the roman civil war
Yeah. There was also the title, literally "dictator", that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.
George Lucas
I want to move away so bad
Go. Start some research, and head out. Many countries you can just enter. Call it a vacation for the first year and see if you like it.
Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.
200 years ago though, now you'll get shit stomped by the military. The 2a thing is honestly a joke.
It wasn't a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.
But the president has the power to tell the army "Don't do shit" in complete impunity.
Eh, Iraq and Afghanistan went rather poorly for the United States.
Option 2 is suicide. I guess that's it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.
The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't even mind since they're the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it's a small price to pay for democracy.
Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.
Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.
Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren't supported by the Constitution!
Whoopsie.
Biden should use the Emergency Alert text system to let every American know what this ruling means, and what’s at stake.
Or, at least break into broadcast programming with an address to inform everyone.
I mean he would certainly make a mark as one of the most interesting president's yet by doing so...
How? Wouldn’t what he did be legal when he did it?
This is the way.
This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!
Short of federal troops literally kicking down doors as oFFiCiAl aCtS it won't happen. The Republicans want their dictatorship and they're not going to vote against it.
AOC should team up with King Joe to make it happen.
We deserve a fresh, genuinely impartial court with term limits - three decades ago.
You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.
Why does Biden not simply EAT the Justices as an Official Presidential Act?
Because eating poisonous animals is dangerous and we all know that Thomas and Kavanaugh have the most toxic blood possible while being able to pass as human from a medical point of view.
This one is from Omicron-Persei 8
Like seriously, I'm tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It's better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.
think you Americans are beyond a peaceful protest at this point, right now you need a revolution. you are quite literally 4 months away from a potential dictatorship.
So you can have a revolution with a peaceful protest. The problem is that requires a general strike to go with it to entirely cripple the economy. And Americans are obviously still too fat and happy to even do that.
Good luck with that, the fans of the potential dictators have most of the guns, law enforcement is packed with fascists, etc...
(Although I agree.)
You could get involved in campaigning for a Democrat running in a local senate race, actually get involved in politics and work for change
We need to hold the supreme court accountable.
It's ok, the the president can now just have them assassinated as a defence of the constitution.
The only Democrat worth their salt.
Hey don’t leave out Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush! IMO they have better politics than even AOC but they just don’t have as much name recognition.
For once, I just want Democrats to take a fucking bold brazen move. Seriously. This is why Democrats never control the narrative because they're always too gun-shy to do the right thing and stand by their own beliefs.
Ditch the 81-year-old clearly suffering cognitive decline; run what would be a viral media frenzy that is an open convention and an American Idol contest for the American people.
Or fuck it: AOC will be old enough to be President this year. Even if she can't get the nomination, she should start campaigning literally today until 2028, just like Trump does.
Edit: Sorry, going to move this to the top of the thread because it's too important:
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."
Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.
Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"
Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"
Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"
Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"
Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"
Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."
Post-Debate Poll: "Three-quarters of US voters say the Democratic Party would have a better shot at holding the presidency in 2024 with someone other than President Joe Biden at the top of the ticket"
Let's face reality:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
Cause democrats are not a unified faction.
Democrats are basically 15 different political parties shoved under the same umbrella.
15 factions = mostly AIPAC recipients.
That lobby group primarily funded by Republicans.
Keep in mind that kremlin still runs massive campaigns to make you think Biden will loose and is unable to run the country.
But he is not alone, this is not a monarchy, there is a full team behind him to make great things for the country.
Of course the Kremlin, and Israel as well as other state actors are; but the obvious question then becomes — what is the Biden campaign actually doing to offset that effect? They are losing the battle and time is running out.
This is all easily remedied. Biden just needs to put out a bounty on Trump's head. Totally legal move.
Yep, totally official move of the president covered by immunity, if I'm reading the Court right!
It's what Trump's lawyers specifically argued for. It's not a hypothetical or exaggeration at all.
While I understand what you mean, we also have to recognize that doing that would 100% give trump the election. Splitting the votes is not what we want to do.
With all due respect if we're speaking in terms of certainty, I am 100% certain that Biden will give Trump the election—and I guarantee I have more evidence to support that statement than anyone does to the opposite conclusion. Staying this course is a disaster in slow-motion. The Titanic already hit the iceberg and now we're just sinking for 4 months straight. We either jump ship now, or we are going to lose, or we start gearing up for 2028 now.
I completely disagree. While the debate felt disastrous, there is ample evidence that a not insignificant amount of swing voters either saw past the old man voice to what he was actually saying and standing for, as well as recognized how badly Trump did, even though literally everyone only focuses on Biden, just like always.
The worst possible thing we can do right now is just jump ship this close to an election. Biden has one bad debate, and is fine the day after(another thing people conveniently love to ignore) and we're just supposed to restart. What if the new candidate does poorly at the second debate? We just pick another person again?
Biden beat Trump last time. Trump has only grown weaker and lost support, while Biden has been extremely successful. Everyone is upset about the debate performance, but it will not be even close to as impactful as people are convincing themselves it will be.
Before going forward, let me be clear: I want to be convinced that we're not fucked. I really do. The past three days I've gone into detail about how I think we're fucked and looking for anyone to make a sound, data-driven argument that shows we are not. I've yet to be convinced by one, and bear in mind I voted for Biden once and would vote for a corpse if it meant preventing the convicted felon getting keys to the WH again.
Please show me these! Because these are all the surveys I've so far seen:
Post-Debate: "72 Percent Say Biden Unfit Mentally, Cognitively."
Post-Debate: "64% of Independents want Biden replaced on the ballot"; that's more than they want Trump replaced on the ballot by 1%, by the way.
Post-Debate: "Voters think Harris is more fit than Biden to run the country"
Post-Debate: "Swing state voters react to presidential debate, Biden’s weak performance"
Post-Debate Focus Group: "Undecided voter focus group leans toward Trump after debate"
Post-Debate Focus Group 2/Reuters: "'I am absolutely voting for Donald Trump': Undecided voters react to Biden's debate performance"
Post-Debate USAToday/Suffolk Poll: "Republican Donald Trump has edged ahead of Democrat Joe Biden, 41% to 38%, in the aftermath of the candidates' rancorous debate last week"
Nate Silver of 538's Model: "Biden’s win probability has dropped to 28 percent from 35 percent on debate night."
Let's face reality:
To me I view it as a known loss versus a known risky chance. At this point, personally and given all the data I've thus far presented, I am that convinced that we will lose. Polling shows people deeply unsatisfied with the current candidate. I think critical swing-state voters would just be happy to vote for a fresh face that is younger. Like Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans like new shit."
So I don't know how how you can say with a straight face that Biden is more successful while simultaneously dodging the obvious fact that there is a significant decline in physical and cognitive performance. So let's recap:
We can downplay all we want, but this wasn't "one bad debate," for it wasn't even about the debat eitself but the revelation of Biden's senility piercing through echo-chambers. For the exact same reason Biden ASKED for this debate to reach important voters and show he's mentally fit (akin to the SOTU) and show Trump is not, it backfired 100% and there will not be another chance to reach 50 million voters at prime-tme. Trump has no obligation to take another debate; ending on that note is all that is needed.
If I was a Republican strategist, I'd be doing everything in my power to keep Biden in the race because I know he'd be the weakest opponent compared to a fresh, younger face. Nate Silver, Ezra Klein, even former Obama/Biden staffers from PSA clearly agree.
Now if you agree with this and you say, "okay I see your points, but how can anyone else do better?" then we'll move on to that.
TBF, It’s difficult to copy-paste MSNBC talking points about why Biden should stay in the race.
You understand that is so far removed from reality it might as well be a Fox headline.
We are 100% giving Trump the election now on our present course. Biden is Hillary with worse numbers.
DO IT! DO IT NOW! You have to show them the checks and balances. There is no god king, there is no one that is not accountable for their actions. Impeach every single one that was nominated by him. Illegitimate court.
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
WHY DOESN'T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT
Cuz hes a milquetoast coward. He shoulda packed the court day one.
*unpacked, by expanding it to 13 minimum, 15 for good measure. But yes.
The president cannot impeach them unilaterally, and is explicitly out of his power.
He could, however, potentially send them to a blacksite as a prisoner or conveniently kill them as part of that arrest. They could claim collusion with domestic terror groups, espionage, corruption, etc, as very plausible justification for arrest, and that would probably qualify as official duties, at least how this SCOTUS would classify the same actions if executed by a republican president.
I mean... in his place I'd probably make them think I was going to do it to see if it would change their mind.
The time has come
Okay I say we get behind AOC. This is important. WTF!
Here me out: Supreme Court justices, Seal Team 6, official act. You don't even have to pack the Court any more.
Yeah but the immunity ruling could be overturned by a future Supreme Co.. Oh, I see now.
Bro Biden is almost 90. Order it, kill himself and go out as a goat.
The one remaining Supreme Court justice: Justice AOC
that would take a congress not filled with cotton-headed ninny muggins
Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.
I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:
Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.
Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).
Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.
Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.
Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it'll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.
Congress shouldn't be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.
(edit) I can't believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following "official acts" or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.
While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.
Yes please.
The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.
You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.
This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.
Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I'm not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.
I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮💨
Fuck yes.
Lol we are so fucked.
Can you.... Can you do that?
Maybe...Congress has impeached one Supreme Court Justice in history, Constitution Article 2, Section 4..
The Article itself stays within the scope of the Executive Branch but the Section itself just says:
Likely, if Congress tried, it would be argued that the scope is only the Executive Branch.
Article 3's scope is the Judicial branch but says in Section 1:
However, Samuel Chase who was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice by George Washington and confirmed by the Senate was impeached by Congress in 1804, and other federal judges (some having life-time appointments apparently) were dissolved.
Samuel Chase ultimately was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 however.
Who would decide tho who can impeach Supreme Court Justice? Because it can't be SCOTUS as that would be deciding in your own case and you guys also don't have a separate constitutional tribunal
Congress impeaches, so Congress would decide. In the case of Justice Chase, he also argued against being able to be impeached but was anyway.
Article 2, section 4 clear says "and all civil officers." It specifies president and vice president likely because they were getting away from a monarchy and wanted to specify they aren't above the law, but it clearly should apply to any federal civil officers.
Does this actually matter if the Supreme Court is ruling in the constitutionality of how accountable they are to other's power? Probably not. This supreme court at least will always argue in favor of serving themselves. I don't know how that plays out at that point.
With this Congress? No.
Not unless Biden uses his new powers to execute all his political enemies.
Hell, people in the military just need to go on and execute the offending members of the supreme court, the house, etc., then just say "the president told us to do so".
'Primaries and midterms don't matter'. Lol.
Get out and vote, people.
Voting gives us no control with the current party system. We need ranked choice voting, end campaigns and advertising. Only 1 website will have the candidates and their platforms, tax funded only, anyone who wants to run can run and ranked choice voting will make the actual most popular acceptable candidate win.
The president should just get rid of the supreme court justices he doesn't want. He can legally do that now bc of the supreme court
As long as you say "I declare official act!" before you do it, you're good.
"Sorry, Mrs. Thomas, but your trip on the billionaire's super yacht has been cancelled and you and your husband are coming with us--by official act and order of King Joe."
You go get 'em, AOC. Personally, I'd like to see the Declaration of Independence rewritten so that it doesn't give this false impression about our form of government and kings.
They should not only be impeached, but charged with 340 million counts of violating the civil rights of the American people (multiplied by dozens of rulings). Life in prison for those criminals.
She wont be able to do anything. The reason supreme court decided to move forward with this decision is because they are 100% confident that Trump will win presidency and republicans will control both the house and the Senate. After seeing Biden in the last debate, I believe they are right.
Maybe instead of using your energy to attack Biden you use it to support your local democrat in their senate run
Unless you actually just want Trump
Or — just maybe — the guy is able to judge reality for what it is. We’re getting trump unless there’s some black swan. I’m voting Brandon, but he’s a fucking disaster right now and the swing state polls are grim as fuck. Best case scenario he fucks off to the next life and we get a new nominee.
Before you accuse me of wanting trump, check my fucking comment history.
Thanks.
I'm going to vote for Biden. I will vote for a used condom before I vote for Trump. But it is my opinion that we already lost the election. We must point fingers and hold the responsible parties accountable, otherwise we will make the same mistake again and again and again...
Maybe the Supreme Court knows something we dont.... for example some folks on the electoral college having been promised bribes... I mean "gratuities" for voting Trump in no matter what the popular vote is.
I'm not saying that's definitely happened, but at this rate the corruption in our government has gone so far it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Especially with the absolute crock of shit that's been pouring out of the Supreme Courts rulings and how it's conveniently setting them up for this, or something similar.
The Supreme Court must be impartial regardless of legislative and executive political mudslinging of the time. That's the whole point of different branches of government.
If SCOTUS made the decision after seeing Trump and Biden debate, or knowing Republicans will control both houses, then they aren't doing their job as they should. There's a reason why juries are encouraged not to watch TV or media that would cloud their decision, and the same should apply to judges.
People forget the bloody whole point of checks and balance!
Yeah sure, except that they clearly aren't. So the question is what do we do now?
Cool story. Now figure out how to stop them other than 'vote'. Cause we know that's just kicking the can down the road.
They didn't forget: they explictly and knowingly realized they could abuse the checks and balances and there would be no consequences. And they have so far been right.
There were times in my life when I was pretty much a functioning alcoholic. If you think that the supreme court has even a shred of decency left, then I want to drink what you are drinking. I don't think I ever got that drunk it my life.
It has become a necessity at this point. That is, if anyone wants to maintain any semblance of sanity
They won't do shiiiiiiiit.
I love her so much.
Man, this country has turned into a fat joke. I'm just done
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Democrat from New York wrote that the court has become "consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control" and that it's "up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."
The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy.
It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
In a statement after the ruling, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Democrats would "engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."
But the act of filing impeachment articles represents a significant escalation in Democrats' efforts to exercise greater oversight over the high court, which has faced numerous ethics scandals in recent years while issuing a spate of conservative opinions that have upended decades of precedent, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.
The last (and only) time a Supreme Court Justice has been impeached was 220 years ago, when Samuel Chase survived an effort to remove him in 1804 over his handling of two politically sensitive trials.
The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 42%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm a little confused. Isn't their ruling just a deferral back to lower courts?
They didn't grant him absolute immunity, they just reaffirmed the incredibly broad language in Article II Section 3 of the Constitution.
They're not giving him immunity for everything he did as president, they just aren't interested in being the authority that decides what is or isn't an "official act". They are letting lower courts decide that.
If there's something I'm missing here, I would love to know, but it feels like people are misunderstanding this decision en masse.
How do you square your take with the dissenting judges that say it effectively makes the president king?
I guess I just don't understand Sotomayor's response. She says that Trump got the immunity he asked for, but that's not true. He was asking for everything he did as president to be considered an "official act", and they deferred to the lower courts.
It doesn't appear that anything actually changed. I am assuming I am wrong on that, but none of the articles I have read so far have answered that question. There are just a lot of assertions that he was granted absolute immunity, which doesn't match the language of the court's opinion.
I would have preferred that they draw a line on specific acts not being considered "official acts", especially as we draw the line between Trump's presidency and his 2020 reelection campaign. I'm just not seeing a lot of honest discourse as to what this decision actually means from a legal perspective.
Well, that's exactly the problem that has everyone up in arms here. They have made this ruling but conveniently failed to rule on what constitutes an "official" act. Therefore whenever a major ruling has to be done about this, they can decide at that time whether an act was official or not based on what flavor of president they're ruling for or against, and until then the lower courts can take the heat off the SCOTUS directly by just ruling that everything Trump has ever done is legal because he was president once.
It's a very transparently partisan ruling, setting the stage for further partisan ruling in the future by being extremely vague about what their ruling actually is. This ruling boils down to "the president is allowed to do anything he wants when we say so, and is subject to rule of law only when we say so, and whether we say so will be determined after the acts in question." In this way the conservative-packed supreme court can easily enable a conservative president or trap a liberal one.
What it does set up though is an official legal stand to say that the supreme Court gets to decide what's "official". Meaning they can decide that all Trump's actions are official and all of Biden's (or whatever dem president) are not
It allows for immunity to any "official acts" by the president while they are in office and does not define what an "unofficial" act would be. So if an action is challenged from the lower courts it'll end up at the supreme court where they will deem it official or unofficial.
Which brings the onus of dethroning a king president up to the Congress to impeach them. Which has never happened. However, we have impeached a supreme court justice in the past.
They did rule that you can't question a president about his motivations or reasons for any particular act when determining whether it was official or not. Only whether the act itself qualifies as official or not, regardless of the reason behind it.
That's like letting your oldest kid do whatever he wants, and after punching your other two little kids and eating their candy you let him figure out if he should be punished and you let him punish himself.
Yes pls
While it’s great in concept, and some awesome posturing- this will fall flat before it ever sees the light of day.
Let it.
FUCK YES
If they tank biden she should run heh
Somebody needs to fucking do more than say "hey this should happen! "