you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (16 children)
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    TokenBoomer didn't say how the Justices were to be removed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    👿

    Edit: I am not advocating for violence………………. . . yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Is it technically murder if the president orders it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    Let the 6 member court deliberate this executive decision. Democrats need to stop asking for permission. Republicans don’t. They act, then apologize for overstepping. Democrats need to stop being defensive and start being offensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They haven’t apologized in a long time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    The Democrats should have taken the gloves off after McConnell refused to confirm Garland and ended the filibuster.

    since the Democrats don't have a time machine, I just want them to learn from their mistakes. They're still using the same strategy of when they go low, we go high -and we lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Also, the reality is these rulings are only when it benefits whomever pays them the most.

    You'd have to convince Putin and a lot of trillion dollar corps that own these justices first. Which seems very unlikely.

    He could sacrifice himself for the greater good and commit illegal acts to wipe the SCOTUS and start again with people that will hold him accountable for his illegal acts. He has a unique opportunity that will go away either through reform or the dismantling of US democracy. Either way, the opportunity is now or never

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    The scorched earth approach would cause problems for Kamala's campaign. After the election however there are a couple months where Biden is still in charge and could go scorched earth with impunity (which would also demonstrate how stupid that system is as well).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Doesn't removing criminal liability basically make it legal?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    Fair point, it's not a de facto legalization. However, I have to question the intent behind allowing for such varied interpretations of presidential immunity. Confining it to official or unofficial leaves an insane amount of wiggle room, when they could have decided to allow for real scrutiny within the context of an action and whose purposes it actually serves.

    As it stands, a conversation between a president and election officials, regardless of context, is an official act. Presidents are allowed to talk to people in an official capacity, so regardless of what is said during those conversations, it's completely fine? Why not provide any guidelines on what constitutes an official act? It's just too broad for anything other than a "I'm sure people will just be cool" acceptance, which is exactly why we find ourselves in this situation to begin with.

    (Edited to add what I'm told is called a "para-graph")

  • source
  • parent