Biden Campaign Brushes Off Idea of Reforming the Supreme Court
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.
Biden once again bringing a deck of cards to a gunfight because responding effectively and proportionally in a situation that desperatetly calls for it wOuLd bE DiVisiVE.
THIS position is a justification for calling for him to step down from the candidacy, because refusing to even consider reforming - let alone packing (or, dare I say, the newly-revealed presidentially-legal-if-“official” extralegal and violent unpacking) the Supreme Court is very obviously going to lead to the long term failure of not only the Democratic Party, but democracy in this country in general.
This. Right. Here.
It's fine if Biden doesn't want to play by the new rules – admirable in fact – but we have to understand that this is the game we're playing now. Either learn to play the game or take your ball and go home.
It's admirable, but not fine! Biden must play by the new rules; the Supreme Court gave him no choice.
"Taking the high road" doesn't just make him lose, it also dooms all the rest of us! It is unethical for him to be that selfish.
Agreed. Hence the "but" and the rest of my comment.
I wish I could disagree with you but I just can't anymore. I fear that we will look back on this as the breaking point.
2D deck of cards vs anarchy checkers, and America loses.
Biden isn't a fascist and neither are the people he appointed. Even if he gave an illegal order, it wouldn't be followed because his administration isn't stocked with incompetent lackies chosen for their loyalty alone.
Looks like everyone that doesn't get in line with Blue MAGA is getting the boot to me.
So you’ve found examples of folks moving on… while ignoring who they are…. Call things “blue maga” but that’s your label. You are “blue maga”… you make this shit up.
Folks being censored by the Biden administration and the entire administration falling in line to intentionally lie, censor and support Genocide you mean?
People here are really jumping to ignore the Genocide part.
I’m so censored! So genocide! So what do you mean? Supporting genocide is just a by-product of language? Genocide is what we do? Do you understand the word or are you just desperate to repeat it? The Biden administration has FORCED me so much… so who can say?
Stop apologizing for Genocide
You don't get to claim Biden is on a moral high ground for not doing something while he has literally done that thing to support Genocide.
I didn't even realize I was commenting on your thread until I got to the genocide shit. Yeah Biden sucks. Yes Israel is perpetrating genocide.
Trump would have Palestinians pushed into the sea by tanks with Zionists jumping off and popping settlements like a real time strategy game. Then everyone would sing hallelujah what a savior as extremist Christians and extremist Jews join hands and wait to receive their Lord and Savior at their new multi-million dollar beachfront mcmansions right over the literal bodies of every Palestinian child in existence.
Stop Trump! Vote!
It's astonishing that a man of his age is still flexible enough to stick his head up his own ass. He still thinks he can work with conservatives, doesn't he?
Dems have to be in on it, that's the only thing that makes sense. It isn't Dem vs. Rep, it's rich vs. poor :(
When it comes to politics there is one golden rule that explains everything:
Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice.
I hate when people use the original version of that rule because it's never a good lense. The original should be 'Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to profit', or do people really think the world is run by idiots who just accidentally managed to profit off of every single time things got worse.
They always say the same. "Oops we did massive war crimes in Korea and Afghanistan and Iraq and oopsie we're doing a Genocide in Gaza! It was all with the best of intentions we're just so clumsy haha!"
I want the power Obama had. The power to overthrow an entire nation based on nothing but economic fears and leave in it's place an open air slave state, then have people who claim to not like war think your biggest scandal is the color of your damn suit. Just doing an oopsie in Libya, whoopsie daisy.
What were the war crimes in Korea? I would have thought Vietnam would be an easier example. Though admittedly I don't know much about the Korean war.
The Korean war is weirdly never really mentioned. It was a lot like Vietnam but more at the beginning of the cold war. We did an amazing amount of war crimes. Napalm was really hot back then (badum ts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_North_Korea
We just see Kim Jong Un waving with his ballistic missiles and thinking he's a funny crazy man that hates America for no reason. That's the magic of telling one side of history.
Conservatives, I understand. They're sick, and toxic, but they fight for what they believe in. Which is why we have to defeat them, and why we have to fight back so hard.
But Liberals, man, I just don't get it. Like zero goddamn fight in them. No political will. Not in my lifetime anyway. "Hey we're kinda less shitty than fascists, vote Democrat."
And I have to, but like, only to keep from sliding into the abyss in my own lifetime. So inspiring. Time to start over.
You are confusing liberals and centrist democrats. Biden and his other centrists are not putting up a fight at all. While liberals like AOC, Sanders and porter have been fighting since day 1. I'm a liberal and every traitor connected to this coup should be hung.
No, he's not. Liberalism is a center-right ideology. Liberals and centrist Democrats are the same people.
You're the one using the term incorrectly as some kind of synonym for leftists.
You can usually tell how old someone is by whether or not they think, "liberal," and, "progressive," are synonyms.
Progressive can mean liberal, I mean look at ole Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt. He was both progressive and liberal. Generally social Democrat does not though.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classical_radicalism
Counterpoint- you can tell how terminally online someone is by thinking liberal doesn't mean progressive in the US.
I disagree with the labeling but it's one of the silly infighting things people on the left have to understand. Fifteen years ago I was proud to call myself a liberal. Now I know the "real" definition and I don't call myself that. But my positions haven't changed much. I'm really hearing what anarchists have to say these days but I call myself a socialist, the same as I did back then.
News flash, words are used differently in different countries. You can try to fight semantic battles on archaic or international definitions of "liberal", but that's a pointless waste of time and not what it means to most Americans. It's well past the point that an incorrect usage has become an alternate definition.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism
Because they actually believe in democracy and believe that it's the people that should prove they disagree by not electing Republicans but again and again the people prove in high enough numbers that they would rather vote against their best interests.
Also, gerrymandering.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don't vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.
We’re here, and we’re waiting for the rest of the populace to figure it out. Because we can’t start a revolution on our own. But you need to realize that people will die for this cause, maybe even you. Are you really ready to fight?
I’ve said it before and I’ll link to that here: https://lemmy.world/comment/6020397
Ok. Post was deleted but my comment was there. Screenshot for the win.
Joe isn't going to DO SHIT and we are FUCKED and the alarm bells NEED TO BE RINGING ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY
Ehh he won't be here to see most of it. Why does he care.
Exactly, which is why he should say "Fuck it!" abuse his power to the n-th degree to save American democracy and then face the consequences.
If I'm Biden I'd have a bill introduce to reform SCOTUS, Presidential powers, campaign finance, election administration, and more and say, "I expect this on my desk in a weeks time. I fear for the safety of our nation and our elected leaders if these issues go unaddressed."
Then if a week goes by and no bill is ready to sign, two Representatives and two Senators (two Rs and two Ds) go missing. Another week? Another four go missing. This can easily repeat for 12 weeks before a majority of the Senate goes missing. Then, perhaps, some family members of the remaining legislators go missing. 🤷
Unprecedented times require unprecedented acts.
In what way does that not lead to immediate civil war and half the country seeing that the lies they were told on fox news were true? That doesnt fix anything long term, or short, but it does guarantee no democrat would be elected for the next 100 years. If biden did that, i would no longer support him either.
Seriously, what world do you live in where violence does not beget more violence? Im not saying that something radical doesnt need to be done, but is sure as fuck isnt that.
Fox News has actually been selling the lie that this decision doesn't change anything and impeachment will curtail any abuse of power. The frog will be slowly boiled to death at this rate. We can try to turn down the temperature or we can start pouring lava in the pot to make the frog go, "Oh, fuck that noise!"
Yes, because impeachment worked so well the last two times.
I think that was the point: Fox News is, as usual, pushing lies and propaganda.
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not. I'm not even really sure what I'm agreeing with.
I said that because the impeachments were fully along party lines. If a major party won't hold its own members accountable, then the whole charade falls apart.
That was the only option, and I'm sure Pelosi et al knew the outcome long before they started it, but it still had to be done. Unfortunately it was far, far too late.
Edit oh I understand now. I totally misinterpreted what you were saying and I don't know how. Yes. Well...I wouldn't say fox just reporteds lies and propaganda. Their "news" is, however, is consistently incomplete and heavily opinionated.
for one, fuck republicans if they're going to do that. You think they care if they start the war or not? They don't give a shit, they'll do it if they want to, otherwise they won't fucking do shit.
secondly, how the fuck does this start the next civil war, trump did vastly more in his time in office, and even outside of office, the supreme court has done more than he has in his entire term. I see no relevance to the republicans here, most of these decisions are just fucking stupid. One of them is unconstitutional (the most recent one)
The post above me was literally advocating a policy of systematic execution of political opponents until the rest of congress capitulate to demands, and you dumb fucks cant understand that would have severe repercussions for the unity of the american population? How does that not dissolve the union or cause literal anarchy in the streets? Those fuckers stormed the capitol for way less. They would absolutely murder their neighbors because lindsay graham was sent to the gilloutine. If you want to out crazy a crazy person, you will absolutely lose. These fuckers have practice. Dont advocate burning the rest of our fragile system down. Help keep it standing. This isnt a wall we want to fall.
If Trump wins, Biden and his wife will both likely be killed at Trump's orders. Trump is already calling for Military Tribunals for his political enemies. Show trials where he can have them all sentenced to death.
Biden's name is on Trumps list, right up near the top.
WTF is wrong with Biden passing on so many easy gimme issues? JFC.
Just like the debate, so many missed opportunities to fucking end Trump. He his not of the right mind, America is in danger.
Yeah. All he had to do was ask him who won the last election and watch him melt down. That was it. Instead he told us how he "defeated Medicare." We're screwed.
Remember when they served him a softball on abortion and somehow he managed to change the subject to an immigrant killing a white woman. Fucking insane
Wouldn't the correct move be to immediately prove why such a ruling is asinine? Use official powers to reform the court, new court removes dangerous ruling asap, guard rail repaired.
Because the president doesn’t have official powers to reform the court
Just have one officially killed.
Then signal to the rest that you'd like them to review this latest decision while you're deciding on your nominee to fill the vacancy.
And literally hours after McConnell says it's too close to an election to have a confirmation, have him killed too.
Then ask his replacement (Cornyn? Graham? Hawley?) to pretty please hold a confirmation vote before your special ops team has a chance to get a few hours of sleep and a hot meal and they're ready to roll again.
I don't know exactly what the limits of his powers are, but at the most extreme couldn't he blockade the homes of the conservative justices, preventing them from fulfilling their duties? If any official act is immune, why not go all the way? I guess it could get him impeached, which probably wouldn't be great for November, but it feels like something has got to give at this point, these rulings have been beyond the pale.
The understanding of what is and isn't an official act is severely lacking. An official act is within the duties of the president. The president can't break the law and claim it was an official duty, lol.
Something about "defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". They would be arguing about the detailed interpretation longer than Biden will be around.
That's extremely doubtful, as Trump was never convicted for something that would label him as an enemy of the United States.
Didn't he get 34 counts of election fraud? Election fraud seems threatening to the USA.
Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.
idk man "upholding democracy and fair representation" seems awfully familiar to what would be considered an "official action" to me, but what do i fucking know.
According to the supreme court they can, as long as breaking the law was an official act.
No, again, you've misunderstood. Breaking the law is not within the duties of the president.
ok so question then, if the immunity act makes the president criminally immune, how does it not constitute breaking the law as a duty of the president? What the fuck is that supposed to mean otherwise?
The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.
Same thing with the president. The president can't break the law and say, "whoops, just doing my official duty". It doesn't work like that.
the president already has immunity as well? Though i believe specifically, it's civil immunity, which tbf is probably most of the cases that would arise.
Regardless it's literally enshrined in the founding papers of america, that the president is not treated any different from a normal civilian. It's a foundational part of our government.
And if you really wanted immunity. Why not provide immunity during their tenure? And not outside of it. We can't justifiably hold our president from the prospects of criminal charges, and we don't (privately), and haven't (entirely) for the past 200 years. And even if they did get charged with something, it's not like you couldn't get a pardon. That's what happened with nixon.
Here's a better question though. Why would the president ever break a law, could you provide a example where it would be obviously beneficial for the president of the US to be immune (across the board) from prosecution? Because in most cases where you would argue for it, it's already explicitly immune due to a separate exclusive immunity, rather than inclusive immunity, as this provides. At best this seems incredibly redundant, and at worst this literally removes an entire segment of checks and balances against the executive, as currently defined, it basically blanket removes a check and balance.
Why not institute some form of decorum for processing and handling criminal charges against the executive that ensure that no duties are "inhibited" without providing a total immunity, except for cases that are not currently defined. It's not like the president doesn't have any legal experts around him.
And while it's true that it's dependent on what's classified as an "official duty" the sole discretion of that is left up to the supreme court. Which removes the independent nature of the congress performing a check and balance. Especially considering the often turbulent nature of the modern supreme court.
The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It's literally in the ruling.
The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.
If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn't give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn't make law.
Have a nice day / night.
Here’s an actual lawyer doing analysis of the dissent from an actual justice. Maybe you should watch it and learn what the decision actually says about official acts
https://youtu.be/MXQ43yyJvgs?si=ZLIXDxQBJjaYEfyS
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.
Nooooooo! Then the right-wing media would paint them as partisan! Instead of what they're doing now, which is ... painting them as partisan.
Jesus Christ just hand us over to Russia already then
Moderates keep telling us nothing matters besides stopping trump, but they keep refusing to take action to actually stop him...
Either they're lying about how big of a threat trump is (they're not) or theyre intentionally not doing everything they can to stop him.
There's no logical consistency.
That shit flies no problem with Republican voters, but historically Dem voters don't like it.
They believe their constitution is magical and if you follow it like you do the Bible, then God will reward you with the presidency. Problem is, fundamentalists have interpreted the book to play by a different set of rules.
SC is literally telling Biden he has all this power...
And Biden's response is seriously:
Like, imagine playing a game of soccer and the ref says you can pick the ball up.
Other team starts playing rugby, and you refuse to let your team pick up the ball.
Now imagine it's not just a game, and literally millions of lives depend on you not losing...
That's what Biden is doing.
Except that we know for a fact the refs are incredibly biased against specifically one team.
I wish he would use it, but I understand the hesitance to do so. Why would they do this BEFORE Trump is back in and even give Biden the option to use it? Why risk giving Biden a 4 year larger window to use it if he does win? Feels like a trap to me.
Mate...
If you think republicans are waiting for Dems to abuse it before they do...
I don't know how much you've been paying attention.
If your point was "why wouldn't they wait for Biden to be out office", it seems like they're confident Biden won't do anything.
And considering how Biden immediately and publicly said he wouldn't, kind of looks like that was a good assumption
I’m not saying they were wrong, but effectively making the first king of the USA doesn’t seem like something one should risk the outcome of, no matter how strong your assumption is.
You're surprised far right extremists have poor risk assessment skills?
That's honestly one of the things that contribute the most to how precarious the current situation is.
A smart person with no fear of failure is a very bad thing, and as terrible as most of the SC justices are, they're not stupid, and the people who put them there definitely aren't.
They're just not afraid of consequences.
The ref's just gave either team the power to choose new refs that are biased against the other team.
I know that’s what all our Lemmy lawyers are saying. But I’m pretty confident SCOTUS would find a way for rules to apply to Biden that weirdly wouldn’t apply to Trump.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see him try. I’m just saying if I was in his spot, I wouldn’t immediately jump in assuming everything will just be “that easy”.
You should at least sleep on it once or twice before you do something as drastic as everyone wants.
I'm not sure you're understanding what I'm laying down. If all previously extra-judicial actions are now potentially on the table, that opens new avenues for changing the members of SCOTUS.
In the Venn diagram of “how fucked am I, personally, if Trump wins?”, they're not the first, second, or even fifth group that gets murdered in a ditch by Christo-fascist militias. So upsetting the status quo is only seen as risking/actually hurting themselves today, over a possibly in the future. Any talk of “divisiveness” is milquetoast dereliction, the MAGA fringe are not honest negotiators.
They’re not actual allies, they’re fair weather friends. For all the rhetoric of “resist” that was thrown about in early 2016, I saw a lot of pink pussy hats and very little black-block. Politics is still a game to them, the stakes aren’t real. Yet.
Biden offered to golf with traitor trump...
Biden campaign, asleep at the wheel. It’s like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
The last line "we have to do everything in our power to stop him" makes me think this was actually a campaign decision. Vote for me or the trump death squads are coming!
We won't do anything in our power right now to make sure that he can't make death squads, that's on you the voter, and if you don't re-elect Joe then you'll have only yourself to blame. Same reason they'll probably never codify roe v Wade, it takes away one of their main selling points.
they'll have to do it next cycle if they're going to do it on this administration at all. It would be wildly irresponsible to ignore it for the prospect that the 2028 election cycle will be democratic again. Especially if trump is still running.
Reforming the Supreme Court was basically Pete's thing during the primaries. He was talking about it years before Roe, Chevron, and absolute immunity. He suggested adding 6 more judges, 5 of which would be rotating appointments by the other 10. It's a shame Biden won't do anything about this - especially when there are other leaders in the party who would.
Didn't appreciate where his overall platform ended up, but his court plan was awesome. It's very much at the point where it needs serious reform beyond just judicial ethics and balancing the numbers.
Loss of advantage will certainly feel like a sting to conservatives, but it's a plan that has some fundamental appeal to fairness. Of course since then the court has gone 6-3, so instituting a 5-5 split would require actually getting rid of a sitting justice.
lol like buttigieg would do ANY of that, do you remember how hard and fast he flipflopped on universal healthcare?
I agree that we have no idea if he'd actually go through with reforming the court if given the opportunity - I'm just pointing out that Democrats have openly called for reforming the court, on the presidential debate stage, as recently as 2019. It shouldn't be viewed as a non-starter - especially when these ideas were coming from the so-called moderate wing of the party.
On the M4A topic, it's crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn't be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.
The difference between Bernie and Pete is Bernie has proven he won’t flip flop like Obama, Bernie has proven he acts according to a genuinely socialist vision. Pete is just another milquetoast status quo manager who knows what coat of paint looks fresh and cool this season and adopts his policy stances to match that. Bernie is literally the polar opposite of that.
To be fair I think it's too early in Pete's political career for me to say that he stands by what he says or for you to say that he doesn't. I don't think anyone can hold a candle to Bernie on ideological consistency - he would rather lose than compromise. We all admire him for that, but it makes him a better activist than politician. I say this as someone who donated to his campaign and voted for him twice.
I agree that Pete is the polar opposite, but I don't know if it's a bad thing. Early on he said that he wanted the primaries to be a debate of ideas, and that - if nominated - he would champion the platform of the party. That could be the MO of a grifter, or it could be someone who's serious about restoring democracy. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical, but if we're dismissing him because we have concerns about his healthcare plan, I'd say we're still living in 2016.
It's like climate change action. Too little, too late. Or really not much at all. Thanks, you fucking primary DNC voters.
The SC literally just granted this power. What was he supposed to do, force them not to release the ruling? He could not have packed the court in any way to cancel out this 6-3 majority in time
how would that change the ruling?? It is not a simple thing at all to reform the highest court, especially amidst these last few insane years. Biden or another D, it is not something that can just be done. You're acting like Biden had the chance to just sit down in a chair but chose not to.
You should be thanking the unelected supreme court fascists.
Let's be clear about what this is,
this is the executive branch refusing to put checks on a clearly corrupt and dysfunctional judicial branch. The stability of our 3 branch system depends on the branches being willing and able to check each other. If one branch yields to another, the system fails.
I agree. This is within the president's role to fix.
Biden, you are head of the executive branch. Your job is to ensure the law is followed. Do your job and start making them do theirs. It doesn't have to be bloody but applying some pressure would be a great start.
I mean, having an unelected group with lifetime appointments with ultimate power was kind of destined to fuck us at some point.
Here's the difference...when Trump gets in office, 3 of the Supreme Court justices are going to fall out the window.
Biden doesn't think it's a big deal.
If you dont try to fight fascism with every tool avaliable and legal to you, then you're a fascist. There's no if and or buts about it. Biden could take steps to counter fascism but instead he make committments to explicitly not fight it using the new SCOTUS ruling and even not to change the courts.
Even if he wins, in 4 years were going to be right back to fascism because he is explicitly refusing to fix this. Hes unfit to fight fascism which means hes unfit to be president in the modern US.
I promise you that trump and the Christo-fascist movement that he represents will be very creative and forceful wielding this power. For Biden and the Democratic leadership to asymmetrically disarm is yet another example of why the fascists keep advancing despite being unpopular on nearly every issue. The allegiance to decorum and gentlemanly procedure is killing us. Remember when Obama just let them steal a Supreme Court seat, without any fight at all? Hell, remember when Gore just cowardly backed down and ceded his win for the good of the country? I’ll say it again. Every bit of awfulness that Republican authoritarians are successfully persecuting is actively enabled by a pathologically cowardly, ineffective Democratic Party. Biden is exactly the wrong leader for this moment in history.
Because of course they did. God forbid a dem take any kind of unseemly action. Instead, we got a 5min press conference about how unacceptable it all is.
The Democrats aren't going to "save you". They like having the Boogeyman of Trump or to get you to vote in "the most important election in our lifetime".
Don't get me wrong, Trump and the Republicans will do more damage socially, but the Democrats couldn't/didn't/won't stop that even when they control(ed) the White House, House of Representative, and the Senate.
Remember folks that this argument falls apart the instant you look at policies. Trump and his cronies will do more damage socially and in every other imaginable way. While not perfect, I feel the Democratic side can be fixed. There is no fixing the vicious and malicious mockery that is the modern Republican Party. For now, and if we fight, the Democrats do still listen when under pressure at least some of the time.
So let's start artificially creating that supply, by demanding.
Where is your evidence for that?
If you don't actually have any please top distacting us from talking about actual solutions.
The campaign is made up of closeted repuglicans. Explains a lot of their bullshit this season
why are we calling them dogs now?
God i fucking hate the little "play on word look at me i'm so clever by engaging in dehumanization" posting.
I'm sure it's a play on 'repugnant'
ah cool, still terrible.
Yes they are. Terrible.
Kicking the can like a dork
Right now, two things are true:
The president ordering the US military to kill US citizens on US soil is legal and cannot be challenged.
One of the presidential candidates is promising to be a dictator on day 1.
This isn't a drill. We're 4 months away from knowing if 6 months away is our democracy's end.
If you VOTE for the Person who CURRENTLY HAS THE POWER TO REIGN IN THE FASCIST COURT they'll do something about the Court! Pinky Promise!
Does he actually currently have the power? Thread yesterday said it requires the House.
The Supreme Court just ruled that he can do anything he wants, up to and including assassinating them, as long as it's an "official act."
They are an existential threat to our freedom and democracy! We have to do everything in our power to stop them! Except, you know, doing anything. That would be inconceivable.
Fuck the Biden campaign, that should be their whole platform now. But instead they use it to threaten us.
Edit: still, im voting for him...
That edit is the whole problem democrats don’t have any consequences for being shitty. If this election is so important than fucking do something popular Jesus Christ.
yeah! Let's just not vote at all and hand trump and the federalist society the election!
Biden has done a FUCK TON of stuff for the average american, especially in the face of the do-nothing MAGA congress. You're mad because Biden isn't immediately whipping his dick out to fuck over the supreme court with the insane amount of power they just handed him? Grow the fuck up, jesus christ. The LAST thing we need are knee-jerk emotional reactions instead of calculated tactics.
I don't immediately disagree with this. Reactionary decisions breed instability and progress requires a foundation. Though with the Nation's already flawed fundaments being actively bulldozed I am compelled to ask: what calculated tactics may we reasonably trust are in play?
Biden has played politics well enough. I'll grant that. Especially while navigating the obscenely successful obstructionist Republican strategies which strangle the Legislature. The fact he's accomplished anything of note in this climate could reasonably be spun as impressive.
Is the bar for America's "left-wing" set so low, and the expectation they'll cow to corporate interest so common (and rightly so), that this spin, these accomplishments, are honestly lauded as the laurels on which the Biden administration may ride to a second term? Forgiving student debt. Ensuring fairer access to home loans. Expanding healthcare coverage for veterans. All good things! No doubt. Is it fair to expect the American people to think this is enough? While higher education, homes, and healthcare become increasingly inaccessible?
Addressing symptoms in this way placates the agitated while maintaining the status quo and setting precedent to, ostensibly, address root cause at a later time. It assumes that the wheel of progress turns slowly. That progress will win out if it is patient and persistent and noble.
The past twelve years have proven this is not so.
The religious right-wing has worked diligently over the last ~70 years to create the current theocratic zeitgeist on which the MAGA parasite is parading to victory. It is not a sudden and surprising uncoordinated incidental movement preying on the Bible belt's misguided moral anxieties. Haphazardly funneling the reactionary rhetoric of today into a Four Years Hate to seize power and further the ideology of Paul Weyrich. No. It is a dedicated effort. A calculated tactic. Others are replicating it and fascism is on the rise world 'round.
Successful opposition to the oligarchy-backed, well organized, long-planned, and now popular out and proud American fascist hate campaign will not be found in treating symptoms or placating concerned citizens or maintaining the status quo. What, then, is the Progressive answer? What tactic is the Biden Administration, or the Democratic Party, or anyone anywhere deploying that we should "grow the fuck up" and wait to see the impact of? Why should I, or any concerned citizen, trust that this is so?
He needs to get rid of these traitors
Read the article, not the headline, he's not saying he won't do it or would veto legislation around it. He says he'll consider court reform. He's "dismissing it" as a thing to focus on right now because you need an an unrealistic amount of congressional votes to pack the court. Good luck with that. The supreme court interprets laws, with less votes than you need to expand it, you can write blisteringly clear legislation that leaves no room for interpretation. Supreme court problem solved.
No matter how clear your law is, if SCOTUS doesn’t like it, they can just declare it unconstitutional after the first yahoo with standing sues the government.
Getting to the point where someone might need to invade and liberate the United States.
Come on, guys! We've got oil and everything!
The Finns. They seem cool. Come on Finland invade us!
I dunno, my non-drinking finnish acquaintance and former gaming buddy (Stupid RL getting in the way all the time) regularly rants about the idiocy of his countrymen during hockey season. :P
July 4th would be a great day to apologize to the king and beg him to take us back.
Biden has already prerecorded his congratulations to trump phone call and plans on sending it a week before the election. He believes it's the only option available to him under the constitution and prevailing sense of political realism.
Biden is a conservative. He is complicit at this point.
Come on, Joe! You’ve lived long enough to become the villain. DO IT!
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 and the recent ruling just means he can’t be held accountable for crimes committed as official acts.
What crimes are being suggested to change the Supreme Court?
Kill the judges using his own immunity granted by them. Elect new ones that will take away this immunity. They are very obviously a threat to democracy and they themselves have said that whether something is an official order cannot be questioned.
He doesn't need to kill them. Take all their personal property using eminent domain, sell all their office space in D.C. and close the court buildings where they operate. Leave them running SCOTUS out of a store front in a strip mall in the most crime ridden part of D.C. He could even use extraordinary rendition (Thanks Dubya) to nab their families and hold them in black sites in foreign countries. There are any number of non-lethal official acts that he can use to make their lives a living hell until they consent to make the changes we need to keep this country safe from fascism. When your enemy hands you a gun, use it.
Can you cite that last part? I didn't read the whole brief, and that wasn't in the summaries I saw
The president is now entirely above the law while on the clock.
But where did they say no one can question whether something is official?
Who do you think decides when it’s an official act?
Yeah, but killing people is still illegal, so even if it was official, he can be impeached.
But that's not all. They also ruled that you can't use official acts in the process of determining what wasn't an official act. If Biden ordered the military to assassinate Trump, the fact that the President is Constitutionally the head of the military and that the military must obey orders from the President couldn't be used as evidence that he gave an illegal order.
This situation is fucked up.
The US military can choose to ignore illegal orders to execute citizens protected by the Constitution. They did not swear an oath to the president, only an oath to protect the Constitution.
No military leader will want to go to a military tribunal where arbitration is decided as punishment and has no jury by peers. It would be either a death sentence if any military official followed the order, or a hard life in a military prison.
In fact, I read that it is codified in the US law Uniform Code of Military justice to be obligated to deny an illegal or an immoral order.
My dude, you're acting like Monday's decision didn't happen.
SCOTUS delineated presidential immunity into three situations:
Unofficial acts- no immunity.
Official acts- presumed immunity. However, no official acts can be used to determine the legality or official-ness of an act.
Constitutionally delegated exercises of authority- total immunity.
In other words, laws are subordinate to Presidential exercises of Constitutional authority. Under the decision rendered by SCOTUS on Monday, as the President is the Commander in Chief of the military, any order he gives the military he would have total immunity for and thus wouldn't be "illegal" as such. Also, because the pardon power is listed in the Constitution, there's no oversight for it either.
So yes, the President could absolutely order the military to assassinate a citizen with the promise of pardoning them, and there's literally no recourse anyone could take.
Unquestionable pardons all around!
Can you even consider the killing in the impeachment trial? He has absolute immunity from criminal acts.
He has absolute immunity from Prosecution for official acts. Impeachment is not a Prosecution (a criminal court proceeding) in that sense: it's a legislative act which looks a lot like a prosecution, but is fundamentally different. So impeachments are not bound by this same rule. Presidents can be impeached for anything, even the color of their shirt, if a majority of the House thinks it's a "high crime or misdemeanor".
You can be impeached for basically anything. But you still need 67 votes in the senate to be removed. And senators can also be murdered. Being able to have immunity for murder as long as you murder anyone who would deny it is a self-empowering ability.
The president acts through people. Asking the military to murder Americans on American soil is the easy slam dunk straight to pound me in the ass federal prison for life idea you've ever come up with.
I don't think you're quite getting the "he can kill anyone who would oppose him" issue.
And literally that he has absolute immunity for acts in his constitutional powers, which including telling the military to kill people. At best the order would be refused, but that's still not an illegal act. You don't need to trust me, you can just read the dissenting Supreme Court justices. The "Seal Team 6" hypothetical was never addressed by the majority, because it's a pretty direct consequence of the ruling, just something they hope wouldn't happen or wouldn't work.
The president can't kill anyone who opposes him. The president is subject to the laws just like anyone else. Breaking the law is not part of his official duty. Assassinating someone the president doesn't like is against the law.
Assassinating an enemy of the United States is a different story. The president cannot claim a citizen of the United States with no criminal activity or record against the United States is an enemy. Furthermore, the military cannot use force on citizens of the United States. The FBI can, and the president doesn't control the FBI the judicial branch does.
Aren't checks and balances fun?!
LOL, this is all just fantasy law, and the stuff that's real is stripped by this ruling. The president can use powers designated to them in the constitution with absolute immunity. Regular law can't change what those powers are, only constitutional amendments. They used to make using them in certain ways illegal, but that's exactly what this ruling gives immunity against. All the guys doing the order, they could still be liable for doing illegal actions, but the president is immune, and they may not actually have any reason to think the president has not determined that the correct circumstances exist to make it legal. And if they agreed with the president he could just pardon them so no one was liable.
Also, I have no idea why you think the FBI is a judicial organization. It's in the executive. It's normally, by custom, treated as semi-independent, but that's a custom, not a law, and the only non-constitutional act the ruling explicitly said is official is the president telling the justice department to do things. Again, the people doing the things may have to worry about the law, but the president ordering them does not and can pardon them if he wants to.
But who's going to do the impeaching when everyone who would oppose it can simply also be killed?
Either you go buy a fucking gun and aggressively protest, or keep complaining online. I'm just saying it's going to buff out either way.
Any power outlined in the constitution is absolutely official, which arguably covers murder via the military. But if you murder the people who would say something isn't official, an entire world of options opens up. The survivors will either agree with you or want to not die.
Which is notably why it's so dangerous under Trump. Trump can get the broad immunity without murdering most of the court (and rightfully setting off alarm bells/triggering rebellion) first.
No, the president has immunity during official duties much like a first responder. If they break the law that isn't an official duty.
Biden has been fighting Congress since he took office on this...
When we had the numbers, he said he'd "look into it" and then we didn't hear back till after the midterms when we no longer had the numbers to do it.
The reason it wasn't done when we could, is Joe Biden.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773
Because the bipartisan commission claimed fixing it would do more harm then letting the current corrupt court do shit like repeal Roe v Wade and all the other shit Biden now says was so terrible.
But if elected again, he still won't fix.
That's a big reason Biden has a 37% approval rating, he opposed actually fixing things. And just wants to maintain the status quo.
It's not a valid long term strategy.
Moderates just want to complain, they don't want to actually fix shit. We've been ignoring it since Obama's pick was stolen, ignoring it more won't magically solve it.
Ok, but what crimes are being suggested to change the Supreme Court?
He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6... Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.
Although I've seen far less civilized but more permanent suggestions.
It's not even a crime, or false accusation.
And as an official act, no one can go after Biden for it.
If Biden believes trump is the threat he says he is, then he needs to do that. But ideally he would have expanded the SC back in 2021 when we had the numbers.
Like, we're backed into this corner because Biden decided to walk into it...
My understanding is many supporters of Biden don’t want a coup or fascism.
If Biden engages in those acts wouldn’t that result in less votes and support? And also increase the chances republicans get away with a coup/facism?
Also, my understanding is a supermajority is required in Congress to change the Supreme Court. Which we did not have in 2021. Am I wrong?
Republicans are gonna republican. But we're literally fight fascism so...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Can be done with a simple majority, which we had till 2022. If Dems really fought and tossed out the filibuster, but they didn't.
Instead Biden created a bipartisan committee to investigate if the corrupt Republican SC should be allowed to stand as is. He gave them 6 months, and after 2 years (as soon as Dems.lost the House) they decided we should just let it go.
At every step, Biden and party leadership refuse to fight.
We can't afford that. If trump is as dangerous as they say (he is) then we need to actually fight.
Even if we lose, it motivates voters for the next election.
But he could still, this very day, arrest them for treason and jail them indefinitely and no one can stop him due to the SC's recent ruling.
From what I’ve read, impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires the same impeachment process as the president so 2/3rds. Not a simple majority.
But even if it could be done with a simple majority, your statement depends on the vote of Manchin and Sinema.
I didn't say anything about impeachment...
From 2020-2022 we could have added justices with a simple majority after throwing out the filibuster.
We didn't.
We are running out of actions because we are running out of time. I wish Biden wouldn't have wasted those two years with a bipartisan commission to find out if everything was fine...
But he did.
Due to the recent SC ruling, Biden faces no punishment for actions committed in office. So he can jail Clarence and everyone else who's corrupt in jail and thus remove the conservative majority. Hell, legally he can have them executed for treason without trial, but I think Gitmo and no communication is more than enough.
There's lots of people in GITMO who have done far less
If trump is the threat Biden says (he is) then we need to do whatever we can to prevent trump.
Do you disagree that trump is an existential threat to American democracy and we may never recover if he becomes president.
For Biden to face no punishment for his actions a judge has to decide that the actions were official acts of a president. So what he can and can’t do are decided by a judge.
Again, you’re strategy for adding justices depends on the vote of Sinema and Manchin. But you’re blaming Biden instead. That makes it seem like a bad faith argument.
There was a whole commission, likely designed to justify inaction, that made a report in December 2021. It's VERY easy to find lawyers who put a great deal of faith into the legal system as it is and despite evidence and their general political persuasion they get panicky at suggestions it's losing legitimacy or a political body.
The report was bad then. I imagine reading it now would be infuriating.
if I recall correctly, the words were... "nothing will fundamentally change". a man of his word.
Yeah, that's a good point, I've seen a lot of suggestions that seem to go beyond the scope of this terrible terrible ruling. I guess he could order the military to prevent congress and the SC from meeting or doing anything. Then he could just issue executive orders, or declare war on a faction of politicians trying to stage a coup maybe?
That’s what it sounded like to me also but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.
Are these people suggesting that Biden assassinate politicians and stage a coup arguing in good faith? Seems like something that would be suggested by an enemy nation.
Basically, the Supreme Court decides what is an official act, so any actions Biden would use this new power for to correct this would be ruled over by the hostile Supreme Court. So the hostile Supreme Court would have to be removed, then the replacement could remove the right for the president to do all this. The first action would have to be to attack the Supreme Court. How bleak. Dammed if you do and SUPER dammed if you don’t
I mean, if Trump wins the election, it might literally be our last election. They have a plan to dismantle our government. So no, unfortunately, I think they're arguing in good faith, trying to use this tool the GOP has set up against them to save the country.
Saving the country means voting for Biden.
I mean, I'm definitely voting for Biden, but I hope it saves the country.
Just do it.
Have anyone who tries to stop you (including Congresspeople who would vote against it) killed.
Call it an "official act."
That's legal now.
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?
Obviously it's ethically horrific, but (from utilitarian and game theory perspectives) it's the least-bad option I can think of right now.
Nope. That is not within the duties of the president. Declaring something official doesn't make it official.
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.
Is Saddam Hussein in the room with us now?
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.
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
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! 🍿
Absolutely not. You're insane, you wouldn't consider anything I'd say.
Oh, by the way: no, I'm not insane. SCOTUS is insane. I'm just discussing the implications of their insane decision.
LOL, you're just saying that because you can't actually refute my point and you know it.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
At this point, what benefit is there of doing nothing and "following the rules"?
If Biden wins, then what? It doesn't fix any of the BS the supreme Court has created it just buys a couple more years until Trump tries again or the next Rep maga agent comes along. Looking at the state of the Republican party, this would be almost any of them at this point then the US is in the exact same position.
They can't hold off the Republicans forever.
Of course if he does reset the court, jails or executes Trump then that plays directly into the hands of the crazies too "SEE! We told you he's trying to take over democracy!!"
They're literally saying that now.
We're afraid of the threat that they'll keep doing what they're doing right now. Why? They're already doing it. We're idiots for letting it affect our decisions.
I hear you for sure but if Biden wins we get four years to figure this shit out and get a younger candidate on the Dem ballot. Maybe more progressive maybe not but not fall of Rome shit like we will get with Trump. I truly think that if Trump loses this election he's through. He might die during his term even if he wins it. But if he loses, and especially if he later dies or goes to prison, MAGA will implode.
I don't know what the fallout will look like if we ever see the dawn of that shining opportunity, but this will be the time to push left hard.
TFG is a threat to democracy. but we won't do anything about it. please vote harder.
no system can survive without mechanisms to protect itself. if a person is immunocompromised, a simple illness can destroy their body. if your computer doesn't have an antivirus, a simple virus can take over the whole system.
if your democracy doesn't have a way to extinguish fascism before it takes over, don't expect democracy to survive it by chance.
Oh, FFS.
The reality is the democrats can't reform the supreme court, because they don't control the House of Representatives, and barely control the Senate.
To enact reform of that type they would need solid majorities in both chambers and control of the presidency. That remains very unlikely. Even simple ideas like expanding the court rather than meaningful reform is impossible as no nominees would get through congress.
It makes sense the democrats make their campaign focused on Donald Trump. And as bad as the supreme court is at the moment, the democrats have bigger issues to deal with - a lacklustre campaign with a poor candidate. It'll be hard enough trying to convince people Biden is a good choice as a candidate, let alone move into complex areas like judicial reform.
He could and should "stack" the court right now. Supreme Court nominees only need advice and consent of the Senate, not the House.
And yet somehow even with a Democratic House/Senate you know Trump will get plenty of mileage out of using this ruling to become emperor.
The Supreme Court literally just said Biden can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as it's an "official" act, including having the conservative Justices assassinated and replaced by people he picks himself, confirmed by the Senate or not.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
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.
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.
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.
Under pressure in 2020, then-candidate Biden promised that, if elected, he would appoint a bipartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.
It’s worth noting, he offered that pledge before the court overturned Roe v. Wade, before it struck down a Trump-era ban on the device that facilitated the deadliest mass shooting in American history, and before it ended affirmative action in college admissions.
Asked what the campaign’s message to voters who have watched as the court has delivered a stream of deeply partisan decisions and who believe the system is broken, and who want to know what Biden would do to fix it in a second term, Fulks offered: “We’re going to continue to make the case and talk to voters about the fact that the judges that Donald Trump put on the court have, honestly, taken away rights from Americans and given more freedom to Donald Trump as president United States to do whatever he wants … This campaign is gonna spend every day from now until November continuing to make that case that if Donald Trump gets anywhere near the White House again, he will do exactly what he has been telling us for months.
The original article contains 825 words, the summary contains 333 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Roosevelt needed the support of congress for that, which Biden doesn’t have. Unless you want him to order assassins or a military coup, I don’t think there’s anything he can do.
I would definitely like him more if he did the latter. So there is something he can do and his enemies just gave him the ability but he's too much of a doormat to fascists to use it.
"Official Acts" are the acts within the powers granted by the constitution, and acts of Congress. Biden (and any future presidents) can't just punch someone, say "I officially punch you!" and get off the hook.
This is similar to the immunity every judge and prosecutor in the country gets. Basically, inb4 the only result of this ruling is a few charges against Trump are dropped.
He can officially defend the country and constitution by ordering the arrest of all of the seditious representatives, and remove the recent supreme courts justices for lying under oath.
The official vs unofficial part will be determined by the courts. I assume most cases involving the President will go to the Supreme Court. Do you see the issue here?
You assumed wrong, as the supreme court said the trails court will determine what is and isn't an official act. What's the problem?
First responders get immunity while they are doing their duty. Judges do too. What exactly is the problem? Breaking the law CANNOT be an official act.
Why exactly do you think the Supreme Court made a whole ruling about former-presidents being immune to prosecution for official acts if you think breaking the law makes something not an official act? There would never be a case when the president would need this protection because they were either making an official act or making an illegal act, never both.
And just to be clear, you're wrong and all the justices on both sides are explicitly talking about doing illegal things while also doing official things.
Because they are protecting our republic. A president shouldn't fear being prosecuted by someone for their official acts when they are out of office, such as a political rival.
And no, something illegal cannot be official.
If something illegal cannot be official then this protection never applies. Someone would prosecute him for an illegal act, he'd invoke the defense of doing an official act, and then the judge would say "but the conduct you're being prosecuted for is illegal, so if you did it, it couldn't have been an official act and immunity does not apply".
And again, none of the justices on either side of the ruling are making this absurd and nonsensical claim.
None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it's in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.
Breaking the law has been an official act for fucking ever. Did Washington break the law when he became the first president of the United States? Obama droned a US citizen. Andrew Jackson said fuck you to the supreme Court and enforced the trail of tears on the sad remnants of the native population that didn't die to illness, battle, or reprisal attacks.
The problem, one of many, is the courts. These fucking judges get appointed en masse. Fucking scumbags. And if you have enough money, clout, or both you get to appeal to the Trump supreme court. I wonder if they would rule differently on an act depending on which party had the presidency.
well he cant reform the supreme court. Doing that would not be affected by this immunity descision. Its still a crime to follow unlawful orders from an immune president.
He could use the military to strong arm either congress or the Supreme Court to make them rule/legislate as he wants. He could just pardon anyone he has following his unlawful orders as well.
“Wow this is incredibly inspiring, I will relentlessly attack anyone who questions this” — liberals
Is this .ml now?
For all of you urging Biden to abuse these ridiculous new powers... Are you nuts? Part of Biden's appeal is that he's the sane one, not the demented orange baboon. If he starts behaving just like that festering asshole, he's going to lose a lot of that appeal. A lot of people will go, "Well, if my choice is between a shit sandwich and a shit salad, I'm not eating at this restaurant," and stay home on election day.
So after the debate i kinda think the election is already doomed. But let’s pretend it’s not. We are looking at four possible out comes. 1. Biden wins by doing nothing, he may or may not attempt to abuse this new power, either way the hostile Supreme Court will have an emergency session and rule against Biden, preventing him from using it. The trap has been laid. 2. Trump wins with Biden doing nothing. Trump uses official action to do everything he swears he would do including military retaliation against his rivals, showing Isreal how to do a real genocide, ect. The trap has sprung. 3. Trump wins because Biden abused these powers and attacked the Supreme Court before they could declare it a non official action. The powers are stripped from the president, we have terrible 4 years, only mitigated by the restriction on presidential powers. The trap misfires. 4. Biden wins even after abusing official actions to attack the hostile Supreme Court, then replacing the justices. We have another 4 Biden years filled with Fox News screeching how he is a dictator. The trap is disarmed.
My bad I forgot to igore Biden being complicit in literal Genocide and abusing his powers for that.
What was Adolf Hitler known for again? Just ignore the Genocide part.
Yawn
Gods, you are an insufferable twat. You are not wrong per se, just also a massive twat.
Waiting for you to do your usual 'blah blah...genocide!...blah bla' routine...
Blah blah I want to ignore Genocide because I don't care about 16.000 brown children getting their heads blown of and israel running over handcuffed elderly people with tanks.
I'm just helping delusional Genocrats face reality. Liberals should just be honest and admit they don't care about brown people instead of pretending that "Biden has a morals because the Genocide doesn't exist".
!nonvoters@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Mathematically, non-voters just voted for whoever wins. So, if you are anti-trump (or all the other evil he stands for) and he wins, but you didn't vote...you voted for him.
Thank you
Because it's a stupid idea. Some Democrats and Liberals want to completely change our political system, judicial system, and Constitution, because thy're not getting their way? It's fucking stupid. Trump was in office and was able to appoint who he wanted...it's pure luck that things worked out in his favor during his Presidency... t's a cycle that will continue when he's long gone and some hardcore liberal President does the same... we don't change everything because one side is upset. STFU Democrats.
Moron.
Except it wasn't pure luck things worked out for Trumps term regarding the SC appointees. Obama was able to pick one or two which was blocked and vetoed and filibustered by the cons for years until their guy was there.
Okay, tell me what Project 2025's purpose is.
nice bait lmao
Bait? Sorry, I forgot we're not allowed to have a different opinion in these parts..
worse bait.
What a stupid take, you sound like a fucking moron.
Ah yes, spoken like a true liberal. I'm a fucking moron for having a different opinion.
No, you're a moron for having a moronic opinion.
Trump had as many appointments because McConnells Senate held up hearing Garlands nomination (not to mention a record number of lower court appointments). And then rushed in Gorsuch. And then when RBG died even closer to an election, they showed their hypocrisy with Barrett.
And the entire point of Project 2025 is to replace a metric shitton of non-political merit-based federal jobs with political appointments so he can staff them full of cronies and circumvent checks and balances that way. Congress won't outlaw hormonal birth control? No worries, FDA can do that. Unitary Executive Theory.
They do what they want, when they want, until somebody stops them. And now, legally, nobody can stop them. Not without using the monkeys paw that this court just handed Biden.
I love how I can be called every single name in the book on Lemmy and Reddit for having a different opinion, but for some reason, when I retaliate, I'm banned, threatened, or warned... funny how ultra Liberal these sites have become...
"I love how I can be called every single name in the book on Lemmy and Reddit for having a different opinion"
Yes, everybody else is crazy and wrong, not you. Absolutely do not question your stance if everybody opposes you, just double down on crying about it and call it not fair.
"funny how ultra Liberal these sites have become..."
I call BS on this one, you always found these sites unsavory and liberal, you just made an account on those sites to 'push back' on these liberals. You are probably on some form of mission, either coordinated or personal, I don't know, but you sure do sound like a troll.
Now don't take this as 'mean librul hurst my feelies', these are just my opinion after assessing you to be an a-hole.
Pridurok.