this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
455 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2190 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
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

SC is literally telling Biden he has all this power...

And Biden's response is seriously:

I don't think I do, so I'm going to ignore this.

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.

[–] BReel@lemmy.one 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] BReel@lemmy.one -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Except that we know for a fact the refs are incredibly biased against specifically one team.

The ref's just gave either team the power to choose new refs that are biased against the other team.

[–] BReel@lemmy.one 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

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.