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:

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

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

Example:

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

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

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

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

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

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 55 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Because the president doesn’t have official powers to reform the court

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] amorpheus@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Akuden@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's extremely doubtful, as Trump was never convicted for something that would label him as an enemy of the United States.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Didn't he get 34 counts of election fraud? Election fraud seems threatening to the USA.

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

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.

[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

According to the supreme court they can, as long as breaking the law was an official act.

[–] immutable@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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

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

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.