this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
843 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19144 readers
6349 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 186 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Can the current king please decree that we’re a democracy?

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 141 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.

There's probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.

[–] Fester@lemm.ee 146 points 4 months ago

Justice: “Don’t kill me, it’s illegal!”

Assassin: “I’m on orders from the president.”

Justice: “Oh, well, go ahead then.”

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Ah yes, the classic play in which you acquire unchecked power, exercise it to get rid of all your political rivals, then somehow use it to restore democracy. Occurs once in an anime about giant robots and psychic powers, and never in history.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.

Of course, by then pandora's box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It's a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 58 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.

It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he's doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 137 points 4 months ago (9 children)

People are getting this all wrong.

They haven't crowned the POTUS as king. They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered. They've crowned themselves, the ones who get to determine what is and what is not an "official act" the kings.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 94 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (12 children)

Did you read the fucking dissent? That's a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.

If one of the dissenting justices thinks it likely, we better pay attention. The whole "They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered." is a pillar built on sinking sand - what defines non-official becomes subjective real fast. Biden could assassinate every conservative justice on SCOTUS and get his own in there to make it all legal. Threats of the same to any in congress who won't play ball.

And if someone can't imagine Biden doing it (I can't), I'm thinking that there are quite a few citizens who believe Trump abso-fucking-lutely would pull that shit. With a majority on SCOTUS already he could just start going after political rivals and keep SCOTUS themselves in check with threats of the same. If SCOTUS has done anything they've painted themselves in a corner and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment (as unlikely as that seems!)

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 29 points 4 months ago (6 children)

I read their point as being "because official acts are not defined and they're the ultimate deciders, the Court can provide or withhold this immunity at will". Turns out killing Republicans is not an official act and killing Democrats is.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Strong incentive to not step down if you can just keep being a crook. Watch how quick the republicans start to argue over what is “official” and what isn’t depending on who is president.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

And they're going to quickly find out how much that illusion of power is worth when they try to contain or cross whatever right-wing fascist they help empower.

These idiots think their power structure isn't going to be gutted like some kind of Mortal Combat move as soon as it is convenient for the king of the US to do so. They have no enforcement of their own, the other branches barely have to listen to them as it is, and by the time whatever CIA maga thug clubs them to death in their bed it's going to be too late for them to render a judgement on whether it's an official act. They'll be dead and replaced with someone who values their life more.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 99 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Here's your bumper sticker..

No Kings, Vote Biden

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 53 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

Well to be fair, it'd be King Biden.

Just a far less scary king who might even work to unking himself.

Or something idk.

This shits scary.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we've already seen how hard that is.

Of course, when Trump's second impeachment didn't stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said "Sike! Congress needed to act all along".

Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

Mueller: "I can't do it. Congress should handle it."

Congress: "We can't do it. The Court should handle it."

Supreme Court: "Nah."

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 16 points 4 months ago

I don't know. Something tells me that they don't have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don't personally support.

I'm getting more of a "rules for thee but not for me" vibe but from the supreme Court

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 66 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well we’d better not miss then

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Furedadmins@lemmy.world 64 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Biden should just have the justices arrested as an official act.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 28 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world 43 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Whilst technically immune now, assassinating them is still extremely polarising and likely to make martyrs, forever. And they won't be able to justify the consequences of their decisions.

Re-arresting them constantly however, from the oval office, interfering with their civil liberties... They themselves would have to describe how it's not an official act, and why the president shouldn't be immune.

The moment they make a ruling... destroy their property, seize their assets, etc... Make their lives a living hell.

It's still polarising, but makes them feel the consequences of their actions. And they'll have to justify it in the public court of opinion for everyone to see to why this is a good thing.

[–] LordGimp@lemm.ee 19 points 4 months ago

I'll take dead martyrs over actively corrupt figures of absolute authority any day any how.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 63 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Not that I would ever suggest it, but I bet the moment a president even attempted to abuse this official power against these six conservative traitors to democracy, they'd desperately try to walk this decision back - they only care for the potential of abuse when it negatively affects them

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 50 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They wouldn’t even need to actually abuse power at all.

Just order the secret service to take over their personal security details, and attach members of the seal teams to each detail…. “As advisors”.

It would be an implicit threat, sure, but also, a totally legal one, and they could hardly argue that “ensuring their safety and wellbeing” is not an official act,

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AuroraZzz@lemmy.world 59 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What's the point of impeachment if the president is immune to everything anyways? This ruling makes no sense

[–] Thrashy@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago (3 children)

The argument, such as it is, is that impeachment is the remedy for a Mad King Trump situation, rather than the courts. In fairness, this is not a completely unreasonable reading of the Constitution, but the framers' intent is almost completely irrelevant to the reality of our current political system. As originally written, the federal government was basically designed to be a vaguely-representative oligarchy, with states free to appoint senators and presidential electors however their legislatures saw fit -- the majority of states did not consistently hold a popular Presidential vote until the 1820s, for example. Impeachment by 2/3rds vote is not an unreasonable bar to set when it's assumed that everybody in government is going the part of the class and social structure, and the President acting as a class traitor would put all of Congress into uproar. The founders did not anticipate more direct democracy, the two-party system, or the vulnerability to demagoguery that those things would introduce into the system.

So here we are now, with a nakedly partisan Supreme Court majority holding that the only way to interpret the law is to ignore the world as it is and instead imagine things are still as they were at the end of the 18th century (mostly because that philosophy plays into the hands of the right wing) and pretending that a 2/3rds vote in the Senate is still a reasonable bar, when in fact the present political reality is that you will never peel 12+ sycophantic Senators away from a dangerous demagogue's camp for long enough for an impeachment process to succeed in removing him from power. Of course that's by design, but textualism and originalism paved the road to this ruling.

At this point I'm not even ironically suggesting that Biden should call their bluff and start offing prominent right wingers. The Roberts court is clearly working in the assumption that Democrats won't play dirty with the tools they're laying out for their incipient god-king, and it's looking increasingly like the only way to keep those tools out of their hands is to strike first.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 57 points 4 months ago

SCOTUS has been trying to hump democracy to death since 2001. The fuckers have just about finally managed it, and we're all screwed.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 57 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The next official act of president Biden should be to drone strike a terrorist at Mar-a-Lago

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 37 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I hope Biden will take this opportunity as the new king and show Republicans that this is a two-way street.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not American, so excuse the silly question.

What is stopping the President from dissolving the Supreme Court?

[–] banana_lama@lemm.ee 53 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It's not within his powers to do so. But he could have the secret service assassinate them. Pardon the perpetrators and then assign whomever he wants the position with threats against the lives of the senate and congress as a whole for all who would vote against assigning this person. Elimate them and have the vote.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 33 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Well dark Brandon should go ahead and just pull trigger then, since he gets a free pass.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] REdOG@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Long live King Biden! Take out them enemies King Biden

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cjk@discuss.tchncs.de 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Considering that an ex-president who invaded a country under a proven false pretext and in violation of international law and has a million Iraqi civilians on his conscience is still painting his little pictures in Texas, perhaps the Supreme Court decision is not as big a break as some seem to think?

[–] ealoe@ani.social 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

One could at least argue that the Iraq invasion was within what was generally understood to be the role of the president at the time, specifically leading the military as its commander in chief. No one expected throwing a coup to be within the normal role of the president, but apparently that's also covered according to this decision.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 800XL@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Buy guns, buy bolt cutters, buy an angle grinder.

[–] retrospectology@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Gas masks too. Look to the Hong Kong umbrella protestors for inspiration on how to prepare and what to expect from a fascist crack down.

[–] 800XL@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The sad part is that if it gets that far, the cops are just going to start shooting. Expect agent provacateurs out the gate.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 27 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Kings and royalty are nowadays mostly entertainment. The king function is now called a dictator

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 25 points 4 months ago

We are a nation of cowards and fools.

If you'll excuse me, I'm off to circus.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

President Trump signed Executive Order 13823 which kept Gitmo open and declared that the USA can detain "persons captured in connection with an armed conflict for the duration of the conflict." That being stated in Trump's executive order makes it clear that detaining such a person would be an official act.

Trump and his MAGA supporters have made unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen and they intended to overthrow the government and install him as President on Jan-6 despite his election loss. Trump and his supporters have made continuous threats of violence and committed numerous acts of violence since then. It is therefore clear that the violent conflict that started on Jan-6, 2021 has not yet concluded. Trump and members of his MAGA army can legally be detained, without charge, for the duration of this conflict if and when they are captured.

Now there may be some question about who would capture Trump and his criminal allies and where they would be detained. It's really quite simple. George W. Bush gave us extraordinary rendition. This program used agreements with about 50 other countries to abduct "terrorists" off the streets of those nations and hold and interrogate them indefinitely in CIA black sites. It is debatable on whether or not the CIA, NSA, or FBI could legally capture Trump or any of his terrorist allies, but that is not a problem. No doubt there are any number of foreign powers that would be happy to do so on our behalf for some diplomatic or financial consideration. Negotiating with other nations and arranging treaties and agreements is unarguably part of the Presidents job and therefore an official act.

Thanks to this ruling all Biden needs to do to save our democracy is to come to an agreement with one or more nations to capture the terrorist Trump and transport him to some black site in a foreign nation. There he can be held, and interrogated if need be, until such time as the conflict with his MAGA army is ended. If there are any legally questionable actions by Biden here, they in the nature of official acts, and he is therefore immune to prosecution now or in the future. Should anyone else involved be charged with a federal crime during the capture or detention, Biden can simply pardon them.

Thank you SCOTUS. You've given Biden the ability to save our nation with no legal risk to himself or anyone else involved in the process... Except, Biden would never do any of this because he is a decent human being. So what SCOTUS has really done is destroy our nation. This is the dumbest ruling ever made by this or any other SCOTUS in the history of this nation. The next Republican president will almost certainly not be a decent human being and will commit atrocities that he or she will never be prosecuted for and will tear down our democracy and will rebuild our nation as a Christian theocracy.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago

They missed their chance to give Trump a Burger King crown

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

Joe Biden should do what he can with these keys. If I were him I'd have them questioning their ruling 1 minute in.

load more comments
view more: next ›