this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
631 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18894 readers
3264 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 143 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE if he decides to Assassinate a Supreme Court Justice according to the Supreme Court Justices!

[–] [email protected] 120 points 2 months ago (1 children)

He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Biden doesn't have the balls to do this. It would be cool as heck if he did.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 months ago (3 children)

No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wild response

The idea od suggesting following any prior tactics of Andrew Jackson is revolting, as cool as your response is

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn't have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court "ultimate decider" powers wasn't a problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I admire your intelligence.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way...

This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.

[–] bradinutah 3 points 2 months ago

Make it nice and official though!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Maybe not. But Dark Brandon does...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

If there were ever a time for Dark Brandon to emerge, this would be it!

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They'll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.

Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king...

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago

60% of the house and 51% of Congress

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But he won't, and neither will any Dem presidents, which is what the right wing SCOTUS is counting on.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago

Lord Trump the first won't have such qualms...