this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
452 points (94.0% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4529 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS.
It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments.
Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Register To Vote
• Citizenship Resource Center
• Congressional Awards Program
• Federal Government Agencies
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• The White House
• U.S. House of Representatives
• U.S. Senate
Partnered Communities:
• News
• World News
• Business News
• Political Discussion
• Ask Politics
• Military News
• Global Politics
• Moderate Politics
• Progressive Politics
• UK Politics
• Canadian Politics
• Australian Politics
• New Zealand Politics
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.