House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision ( apnews.com )

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

robocall ,
@robocall@lemmy.world avatar

Nothing pisses off congress more than having to do something and vote on legislation. Supreme Court made an enemy.

twistypencil ,

Military must refuse illegal orders... I don't think it's that simple. Maybe if he goes on a one president killing spree, but ordering people to do illegal things doesn't mean they are immediately going to do illegal things, especially when they are not criminally immune

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Problem is not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar. What happens if part of the military believes it's their duty to follow the President's order (since they judge it to be a legal order) while another part of the military believes it's their duty to not follow an order (since they judge it to be illegal)?

This ruling is laying the groundwork for a civil war.

droans ,

We're not exactly more than a couple steps away from the SCOTUS saying that if you can't prosecute official acts, then ipso facto it must also extend to those enforcing the acts.

LordCrom ,

This will never happen. You can't get enough states to agree let alone Congress. Getting an amendment passed is near impossible in this climate. The mere fact that a Democrat proposed it mean FOX will demonize it as a threat to america

Laurentide ,
@Laurentide@pawb.social avatar

True, but it's still the right thing to do. At the very least it will force some members of Congress to clearly and undeniably declare themselves as supporters of tyranny.

Beaver ,
@Beaver@lemmy.ca avatar

Ranked choice voting can fix that issue as first-past-the-post sucks so bad.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Agree on ranked choice, but Prop Rep doesn't have a good track record.

Cethin ,

It won't pass, but it does show that both sides aren't the same. It's the correct move even if it's just signaling.

quoll ,

repeal the 2nd while you at it

archonet ,

yes, the perfect time to give up our guns, when the fascists are on the verge of getting control of the government, what a smart idea

SeattleRain ,

I'll believe it when I see it.

Hackworth ,

Do you not believe they're preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?

SeattleRain ,

I think they'll sabotage it or compromise it so much it will be meaningless like the Dems always do.

Hackworth ,

You believe it's the Dem's that do the sabotaging, and that they are compromising to...themselves? Interesting.

shikitohno ,

For some of their more conservative members, they've certainly done so in the past, but I'm pretty sure that @SeattleRain is just talking about the self-defeating obsession that Democrats have with appearing non-partisan. Yes, they do need to compromise to an extent to get something through the house at the moment, but they have essentially self-sabotaged in the past when they had the majorities to not need to do so, yet insist on negotiating with the Republicans anyway because they hope moderate Republicans will give them credit for not ramming legislation through in a one-sided fashion.

This really only works when the other party is engaging in negotiations in good faith, which the Republicans do not. As a result, the Democrats give the GOP initiative on steering bills and policies as they like, winding up with compromised legislation that doesn't please their actual base, while also not getting credit from the Republicans they're hoping to sway in some sense.

For an easy example of this, look at talks about eliminating the filibuster earlier in Biden's presidency. Manchin and Sinema made it a dead idea, but even before that, Biden has been opposed because of his obsession with reaching across the aisle in an age where trying to do so only serves to stop his agenda dead in its tracks. Rather than get their elbows out and bully the two hold outs into falling in line (which was supposed to be what Manchin was good for, at least. I kept hearing, "He disrupts things, but he falls in line when it counts," but pretty much never saw evidence of this), they just shrugged and collectively let the agenda die or get neutered, because to do otherwise would not be bipartisan.

Hackworth ,

I appreciate one of the most concise explanations of that perspective I've ever read! This is actually the one I'd like to believe, but not the one I do. I disagree with the idea that "both sides are the same," but I won't go so far as to imagine Democrats are truly concerned with integrity to the degree that they'd sacrifices strategy. I'm afraid they're just people, and people are all fucking stupid in their own way. It's just some are fucking stupid and malicious.

shikitohno ,

I don't think it's necessarily being so concerned with integrity as to deliberately self-sabotage, but rather that this was a potentially viable strategy 40-50 years ago, and many of the eldritch horrors in party leadership, Biden included, just haven't gotten the message that the situation has changed in the interim. Part of Biden's campaign pitch was that he's worked in Congress for so long and has the relations that would let him reach out to the other side to get stuff passed, and he just gets taken advantage of when trying to do so. The Republicans have long since moved on to a strategy of "Ram through whatever you can while you're in power, and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct when you aren't." They generally aren't concerned at all with what non-GOP voters think of them and their actions, which lets them just bulldoze their way through the process while racking up points with their base for being effective at advancing the agenda, regardless of how hypocritical/immoral they are in the process. Just see Mitch McConnell when Obama tried appointing a justice to the Supreme Court near the end of his term versus his response to Trump doing the same.

I would also say there's just a fundamentally different level of at least the appearance of integrity necessary on the Democratic side, and Democratic voters are less willing to accept that the ends justifies the means. This is clearly illustrated just by looking at the fallout for pretty much any Republican having a sex scandal, versus it happening to a Democrat. In his initial scandal, Anthony Weiner didn't even engage in a criminal act, having sent a 21-year old woman a sexually explicit photo. In less than a month, Nancy Pelosi had called for an investigation into it and he'd resigned his seat. In contrast, Trump has been found liable for sexual abuse in a civil case and has had heaps of sexual assault and harassment accusations brought against him, yet the party of family values, good, Christian morals, and law and order is still completely behind him.

gmalette , (edited )

The patriotic thing to do for Biden is to go on a crime spree using his newly found immunity. All crimes must be part of core acts or official acts. See how long that takes

baronvonj ,
@baronvonj@lemmy.world avatar

Seriously, he needs to "no not like that" this shit so far that the Republicans have no choice but to reign in their bullshit.

Semi_Hemi_Demigod ,
@Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world avatar

How are they expected to prosecute the "Biden Crime Family" if they can't prosecute the Kingpin?

Furbag , (edited )

I think this is unironically how they need to spin it. Convince the Republican base that this ruling is actually better for Biden than it is for Trump by repeating their own false narratives back to them - that the Biden Crime Family will get away with everything. Albeit, the things he could actually get away with are limited to what the court determines is an official act, and given the current makeup of the SCOTUS it's unlikely that they would side with him even if there were precedent, but he would be still almost untouchable under this new ruling no matter how you spin it.

Have a case against Joe Biden? Sorry, all of that evidence is now inadmissible in a court of law because it happened while he was president. Too bad, Republicans! Maybe if you were to... I dunno, pass a constitutional amendment that revoked that privilege. But oooooh nooooo, that would be horrible! Please, anything but that! All our nefarious plots would be undone and Biden would go to prison!

null ,
@null@slrpnk.net avatar

What's a "core act" or "official act"? Who decides that?

Waraugh ,

I’ll do it

JakenVeina ,

That's the insidious part. People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties. They've INTENTIONALLY left it unspecified what counts as an "official" act, so that any question that comes up just goes right back to them, and they can rule however they see fit. Also, people are assuming the Court won't just directly contradict their own rulings, the moment it's convenient. This entire thing just shows that the Court can and will give itself final say on any questions of law or policy, I.E. anything anyone in the government does. This doesn't make the President a king, it makes the Court the king.

Llewellyn ,

They've INTENTIONALLY left it unspecified what counts as an "official" act

That's a speculation, thought.

gmalette ,

Well he just needs to do exactly those that Trump did 😅

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties.

The SCOTUS doesn't have a DOJ or an FBI to arrest and prosecute anyone with. That's the big catch in all this arguing.

If Biden seriously wanted to be a sassy bitch, he'd have Trump extraordinarily renditioned to a prison in Iraq and tried for bombing the Iraqi airfield that hosted the Iranian ambassadors.

The SCOTUS gets to pound sand, Americans can heal a gapping foreign policy wound between the US and Iran, and Trump gets a taste of living as an illegal.

But he's not going to do that. He's not going to impound Trump's assets or freeze his accounts. He's not going to treat Trump in any way like an asset of an enemy power.

Because he's terrified of violating the Norms that dictate presidents can, in fact, do whatever the hell they want.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Also because Biden isn't a criminal.

This ruling only benefits criminal Presidents, which is what Trump was and may soon be again.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Also because Biden isn’t a criminal.

The US has committing war crimes on a regular basis, globally, practically since the word entered the vernacular.

Biden still hasn't closed Gitmo - a two decade running war crime - along with the rest of our torture prisons and black sites. He's blatantly violated international law via our looting of the Afghan Treasury, our terror bombing in Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Iraq, our mercenary kill squads sent into Mali, Yemen, Congo, Nigeria, and Haiti, and our illegal occupation from the the Philippines and Japan to Panama and Cuba.

And then there's Israel.

Biden's continued criminal misconduct dating back to the McKinley Administration. Its just within the scope of his office, so the SCOTUS thinks he's beyond prosecution.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

When you don't know anything about foreign affairs, international law, what a war is, what an occupation is, then sure, everything looks like a war crime.

But there is actually definitions for these kinds of things. You might want to look into them so you won't continue to sound like a teenager.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

everything looks like a war crime

Mass execution of civilians is always a war crime.

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

Again, not familiar enough with what a war is. It's not like a video game portrayal of war where the civilians are outlined with a different colour than the combatants. Sure it could be a little closer to that if all combatants wore uniforms, but sometimes one side in a war fights dirty and doesn't wear uniforms and actively tries to blend in with the civilians.

In any case in every war there are civilian causalities. Unlike video games there's no option to make the bullets only damage enemies. The reality is you have a bunch of scared teenagers firing live bullets that can kill they enemy, friendly soldiers, and civilians.

Never hear the phrase "war is hell"? You think people were just joshing you about that? Now that you see that war isn't how it's portrayed in movies and video games you need to call it something else so you can continue to think war is a fun thing?

SpaceCowboy ,
@SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

I'd say it makes a criminal President into a King.

It doesn't give the president authority to do anything he wants. It just shields him from prosecution if he commits a crime.

Biden isn't a criminal so he has no additional authority. Trump on the other hand is a criminal and makes no apologies for it. He will commit crimes if he's President again. And Trump's weaselly nature around the law means he'll be able to find every crime he can convince people to commit on his behalf. It won't matter if it's known he ordered the crime to happen he's immune. His henchmen can get pardons. He no longer would need to care that the pardon would nullify fifth amendment protections on compelling testimony since he's immune from prosecution. And if he gets elected as a convicted felon, why would he care about things like legacy (as if he did before)?

Muscar ,

"go on a crime"

gmalette ,

I think I a word

“spree”

Yawweee877h444 ,

People keep making this dumb joke over and over and over again. Biden isn't going to do anything trump wants to do with this newfound immunity

TokenBoomer ,

Joke? We know that Biden won’t. But he should, if only just to show how farcical this ruling is. Maybe, start small. Make mail-in voting mandatory and the election a national holiday, via executive order. Then, officially allow all prisoners to vote. Next, make DACA recipients citizens allowed to vote. As long as he doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the capitalist class, eventually Republicans will be begging for a Constitutional Amendment.

AdrianTheFrog ,
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

He can still probably get impeached, if it’s something congress doesn’t like

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy ,

dems have the senate, he wont be convicted

irotsoma ,
@irotsoma@lemmy.world avatar

I don't even think this ruling allows for impeachment, TBH. This ruling was pretty broad. As long as the act is done in an official capacity and it is within the president's powers, even if only under certain circumstances which you can't prove the circumstances didn't exist if you can't prosecute, then there is immunity. Immunity means no one can even investigate officially, much less bring a case. The only thing you can investigate is if you can prove that he did it while not acting in an official capacity, which sex is one of the few things that applies to and even that could probably be manipulated, or that the president has no authority whatsoever over the subject, but that's pretty limited since he has full authority over the military and the entire executive branch as well as our nuclear weapons. I mean he can't go into the Supreme Court, take the place of a Justice and issue a judgement. But he definitely can use the CIA to assassinate a Justice to change something. And you would only be able to prosecute the CIA agents, not the president.

friend_of_satan ,

Dark Brandon is the hero this country needs.

PanArab , (edited )

Good luck getting -2/3- 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

Snowclone ,

I'd hope this ruling would inspire the need, but I won't hold my breath.

chiliedogg ,

3/4 for amendments, actually.

PanArab ,

That's even harder.

BigMacHole ,

ADDING an Amendment to a Document that the Supreme Court is IGNORING is the PERFECT way to Fix this!

Freefall ,

The SCOTUS will rule the president still has immunity, again...they don't care what the Constitution actually says.

lolcatnip ,

And also impossible because the Republicanazis would never allow it.

InternetUser2012 ,

republikkklowns

jjjalljs ,

Use amendment 14 section 3 to remove most of the Republicans from office.

Get rid of the idea of judicial review.

TokenBoomer ,

Seems fair

SlippiHUD ,
@SlippiHUD@lemmy.world avatar

I agree with this political stunt to point out the Trump Courts illegitimacy.

The words of the constitution currently have no value to the Trump Court. They just invented Total Criminal Immunity for official acts, and anything said to a government employee isn't admissible in court. In a country founded on the idea no one is above the law.

This court is worse than the Dredd Scott court, they'll just rule up is down and any amendment meant to undermine their decision actually affirms it.

For those arguing that Biden couldn't do the funniest thing ever, I disagree. It truely doesn't matter if they rule it an unofficial act. The purpose of this ruling is to get Trump out of his 34 felonies he's already been convicted of because they used a lot of testimony from administration employees. So as long as that part of the ruling stands, Biden can still get away with anything. How do you convict with no witnesses.

Natanael , (edited )

The constitution even says the president isn't immune and the federalist papers spells it out EXTREMELY clearly for any "originalist" to read.

Honestly the courts should call out SCOTUS on lying and making an invalid ruling that the constitution does not give them the authority to make, then just acting like it didn't happen.

AdrianTheFrog , (edited )
@AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

I think it’s supposed to be congress’s responsibility to do that, but I guess there’s enough conservatives there to prevent that.

Edit: you would need at least 1/3 of senate republicans to agree to impeach a justice

Natanael ,

During presidency at most, but all the history says presidents were supposed to be possible to prosecute for crimes after their term and SCOTUS ignored that despite the majority claiming to be originalists

sarcasticsunrise ,
@sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.world avatar

Finally someone with the fucking stones to call this fascistic slow crawl out for what it is, we can still stop this. If I'm a single issue voter who's only concern is not wanting to "live" under the yolk of a tyrannical monarch (me, but not single issue), then this has my attention. The clock is ticking, I hate it too.

subignition ,
@subignition@fedia.io avatar

Ooh, I haven't seen this turn of phrase in a while. I think you may want "yoke" over "yolk" here though.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

he's got egg on his face over that mistake!

TachyonTele ,

And he's too chicken to correct it!

TokenBoomer ,

Do we really have to crow about a mistake?

ShaggySnacks ,

No, we have to chirp about it.

dual_sport_dork ,
@dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world avatar

For Trump specifically it may be appropriate, though. The yoke of Trump's oppression would almost certainly involve mayonnaise in it somewhere.

fubarx ,

Say this gets passed, and it's signed. Forget the higher bar for an amendment. It will get challenged and end up in front of the very same court.

The system has an inherent flaw that was not anticipated by the Founders. Smart, legal people need to get into 4D puzzle-solving mode.

Eezyville ,
@Eezyville@sh.itjust.works avatar

This isn't a law that has to be signed but a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by a certain number of states.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

House Democrat... Great, so it's dead on arrival then.

Republicans control the House and they will never allow a vote on this.

pineapple_pizza ,

Unless maybe biden threatens to use his immunity

dodgy_bagel ,

Maybe my pig will shit out a gold nugget.

Minarble ,

How do you know it hasn’t?
You’d better go check.

Wrench ,

It puts a magnifying glass on the people obstructing the fight against blatant corruption. Which is a good start, and really the only thing that can be done with a simple majority.

Biden could also just start assassinating the nay sayers until the point gets through, too.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

It does nothing, same as the votes against the Trump impeachments. "Do they have an (R) by their name?" Really all you need to know.

Wrench ,

Well, Option B is looking good still.

FlyingSquid ,
@FlyingSquid@lemmy.world avatar

As I was going to say- good luck with that one.

pixxelkick ,

IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.

Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.

This of course means "if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die".

Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.

I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.

grue ,

*hanged.

"Hung" is a... different thing, which the male justices might see as a positive.

blanketswithsmallpox ,

They're the same word now. Hooray language evolving!

jaybone ,

Hung Mike Pence

wolfeh ,
@wolfeh@lemmy.world avatar

Rule 34.

blanketswithsmallpox ,

I'd fap to that.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

Hooray Idiocracy!

blanketswithsmallpox ,

Right? Like who the fuck doesn't know language evolves? It's literally conservative to not create new words and refine semantics.

I get it. Grammar Nazis were one of the few things poor and middle class racists had to feel superior to them.

It's literally racist old man yells at cloud meme half the time.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

  • Loading...
  • blanketswithsmallpox ,

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices 0 points 32 minutes ago

    y u trying to axe me questions?

    Wow, that wasn't hard to bait the racist lol.

    ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the moderator]

  • Loading...
  • JasonDJ ,

    Idk, can't we fantasize about how Thomas could be hung like a black man?

    demizerone ,

    The coward Clarence Thomas would resign. Piece of shit.

    DoomedCracker ,

    Sounds like a win to me

    Barbarian ,
    @Barbarian@sh.itjust.works avatar

    As far as I understand the decision (IANAL!), the definition of what constitutes an "Official Act" is left intentionally undefined, so in effect you can only claim this ultimate power if the courts like you in order to declare what you're doing official.

    This means, if I understand it correctly, king powers for Trump and nothing for Biden. They'd just rule everything Biden is doing as not an official act.

    Monument ,

    The ruling happens after the act. Who knows what justices we’ll have by then.

    jaybone ,

    I, for one, welcome our new unelected overlords.

    mjhelto ,

    I, for one, welcome our new unelected , lifetime-appointed overlords.

    TachyonTele ,

    I too choose this mans imprisoned wife

    Snowclone ,

    Biden could execute all members of the court and replace them with people who will agree everything he does is legal.

    absGeekNZ ,
    @absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz avatar

    This is easy to get around.

    Just start any order with "In my capacity as president, I decree that....."

    foggy ,

    Hanged*

    twistypencil ,

    You realize immunity doesn't mean declare what you want, and you get it?

    Also It's not illegal for Biden to say he is invalidating his immunity powers, it's just meaningless. Now if he punched Stormy Daniel's until she agreed to give syphilis to the court, that might be illegal acts that fall under his official duties.

    Also, you need the courts behind whatever illegal thing you are going to do.

    sudo ,
    1. Declare new rules
    2. Use any method, legal or otherwise, to enforce said rules
    3. Claim immunity

    Congratulations. You've successfully used immunity to declare whatever you want.

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Immunity is for crimes which is explicitly about breaking the rules, it's not about making up new rules.

    sudo ,

    And that's why immunity was step 3, and making up new rules was step 1. Please refer to the steps if you have any more questions.

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    I didn't ask a question. Please refer to the single sentence I wrote if you have any more questions about how your first two steps have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution.

    Carrolade ,

    The idea that you actually need courts behind you is laughable. Power is enforced through the threat of violence, this is how law enforcement functions. Courts do not have soldiers.

    Know who does? Commander-in-Chief, now with full immunity for any official act, like, giving orders to the military.

    One could say perhaps the soldiers themselves would be afraid of prosecution and would disobey orders, since they don't get immunity. Until the President pardons them anyway.

    Otherwise only one last line of firm defense remains: the oath each serviceman takes to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That might make someone disobey an illegal order.

    zfr ,

    There's a quote from Andrew Jackson when he ignored the Court where he basically told them to enforce their decisions themselves.

    TokenBoomer ,

    This says that’s an apocryphal myth, but I’ll choose to believe it.

    twistypencil ,

    You need to have the military behind you and ready to do illegal things. When sworn to refuse illegal orders, this may not be so ready to go

    Snapz ,

    You realize, no...

    Immunity here means declare whatever you want, and then mandate that the military eliminate anyone who opposes your new mandate. This "fun" hypothetical is a president invalidating their immunity powers and then having that decree reinforced by death, that second part is the illegal you want in this equation.

    It's done to "Save America", so it's an official act.

    "If a president couldn't freely do rapes, bribes, frauds and incite violence without repercussions, who would way to be president?"

    • one of the two candidates for US President probably
    rayyy ,

    We are dealing with psychopaths who are itching to murder people and they vow to NOT recognize a free and fair election. VOTE people.

    postmateDumbass ,

    So what about the part after the vote when those who vowed to ignore said vote do so?

    ZILtoid1991 ,
    TokenBoomer ,

    I have to continue my streak of always upvoting Innuendo Studios.

    pixxelkick ,

    I love how people will open face admit that voting is clearly not enough and then be like "remember to vote owo"

    I think folks need to start digging into a little stronger stuff than simply voting, lol

    Need to start looking into further legal options beyond just voting.

    nomous ,

    I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.

    Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.

    If you're just standing on your soap box unwilling to go to the ballot box, you're probably not going to be willing to go to the other boxes that may be necessary. It doesn't take that much effort to vote, and the other things take even more effort than that.

    pixxelkick ,

    I think the main thing is, people have been banging the "just vote" drum for like 12 years now, and people are voting.

    Trump isnt currently the president, nor has he been for nearly 4 years.

    And yet the US's constitution has never been more eroded. People DID vote, but it doesnt do jack shit when the individuals in question fucking shit up weren't voted in

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    It takes a long time before a Supreme Court Justice retires or kicks the bucket, doesn't it? It's only then they get replaced and that's done by whoever is in power at the time.

    Democracy isn't voting once and immediately getting what you want. Democracy is a process, it isn't like ordering something on Amazon.

    There are a lot of people who wanted abortion to be illegal. They voted in every election they were eligible to vote in for decades. And they got what they wanted, didn't they?

    That's what you're up against. If you're whining about having to vote in multiple elections, remember the people that want to take away your rights aren't whining about having to vote in every election. They will even vote for Trump knowing full well he's not a religious man so they can get what they want. They just do it and they're now getting what they want.

    And that's democracy. The people that vote in every election get what they want. The people that lack the dedication to do the same don't get what they want.

    So either vote or accept that abdicating your responsibility to others you're allowing them to decide the long term direction your country will take. That's the choice you're making.

    mister_flibble ,

    That was my thought too. This is sweeping and broad enough there's honestly likely multiple ways to just use the ruling to undo the ruling.

    https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/68b76708-4a10-4505-b668-c5954c2de9bf.gif

    InternetUser2012 ,

    Except Biden is an adult and not petulant child. Democracy will prevail. The voters will take care of it come November.

    todd_bonzalez ,

    lmao

    Trainguyrom ,

    The average American has zero clue how anything in the government works, nor the interest in policy to actually understand what the policies their politician of choice are pushing do. The average American is so disconnected from politics it's zero surprise that shitty politicians are elected everywhere regularly.

    This isn't an indictment of the people themselves but the society they live in that somehow incientivizes general laziness when it comes to civics

    InternetUser2012 ,

    The republikkklowns have really simplified it though.They STAND for removing human rights, racism, facism and against anything good for the people. At this point you have two choices. Democracy or Dictatorship. I'll take human rights and Democracy please.

    Trainguyrom ,

    My point was that the average American is simply too disconnected from politics to see this. The average voter is terrifyingly uninformed

    pixxelkick ,

    That doesnt take care of it, nor can voters take care of it.

    Even if Biden gets re-elected, this ruling stays in play perpetually until someone undoes it, which requires the supreme court justices to walk it back after a period of time.

    The only option is to use the newly granted powers themself to undo the granted powers.

    It's, imo, the only play.

    Also this has nothing to do with being a "petulant child", it proves the point of how the granted powers are over-reaching.

    If they werent over-reaching, then he wouldnt be able to use them to do this. It becomes a forced move on the justices behalf.

    They either:

    a. Accept the powers are to overpowered and in turn are forced to, through the command itself, have to roll it back
    or
    b. Rule that Biden cant do that, which forces cementing an upper limit on what the powers can do (it establishes a baseline that you cant just use the powers to force supreme justice acts and/or to order people to die)

    Either way, it either neuters the powers to some extent or completely nullifies them.

    TokenBoomer ,

    Happy Cake Day, will you be my President?

    AdrianTheFrog ,
    @AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world avatar

    Would still end with him getting arrested/impeached though, I guess he could do it as a self-sacrifice thing and leave Harris to run

    SpaceCowboy ,
    @SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca avatar

    There's a difference between having the authority to do something and being immune to prosecution for a crime.

    Biden doesn't have the authority to issue an order for summary execution.

    If he could convince someone to commit the crime of killing members of SCOTUS, and it was considered an official act of the President, then he might be shielded from prosecution for it, and he could issue a pardon for those that did the deed.

    The ruling only benefits a criminal President, and Biden isn't a criminal.

    machinin ,

    Do this in tandem with Biden taking full advantage of the current immunity to utterly destroy the Trump campaign since it is a threat to democracy. We'll get that amendment passed in no time.

    demizerone ,

    And throw the corrupt justices in jail.

    JasonDJ ,

    The only way to destroy Trump is through a long series of viral propaganda documentaries.

    Not good ones. Shittily produced ones that get hosted on Vimeo.

    wanderingmagus ,

    Or just order the assassination of Trump and anyone that supports him without trial, in the name of "national security". Immunity, official act, etc. See how fast the justices rescind their ruling.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • news@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines