Speaks for itself. We've been beyond satire for a long time but this one still got me.

all 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 90 points 2 years ago

Overthrowing democracy was an offical act. - SCOTUS

  • source
  • [–] 58 points 2 years ago

    damn, who could've possibly seen that coming? 🫥

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    If Trump is reelected, there's about to be a whole lot of people within official act range.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 34 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The Supreme Court members who made this decision are in official act range right now at this moment. Donald Trump is in official act range at this moment as well. Not to draw conclusions but I'm not sure how serious the Democrats are about staying in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    "They go low, we go high."

    😂 🔫

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    The should just be honest:

    “Yes this is bad, but we might want to use this power ourselves so we won’t do anything to reverse it. You just need to vote so only WE have the power to use it.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Honest question: What should democrats do to reverse the Supreme Court?

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

    Kill or forcibly resign everyone on the Supreme court who voted in favor of the decision, appoint new justices, and have it overturned.

    More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they're the majority and then overturn it.

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

    More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they're the majority and then overturn it.

    This will at best take a LOT of time. Congress is not famous for their speed.

    At the worst it is politically impossible.

    So how is this realistic?

    What you said first can probably be done, even if it does break the democratic norms. This latter option seems unrealistic to me.

    Bare minimum Biden needs to declare a state of emergency, a Constitutional crisis, and talk to us on TV about what his administration is doing to handle the crisis firmly and expeditiously. Anything less is irresponsible.

    The people in Biden's admin are smarter than myself. All my simpleminded self can think of is using the power of the official acts against the SCOTUS itself. If Biden's White House has better ideas, get on TV right now, and tell us what they are and what is the White House doing about SCOTUS and the nearly unlimited expansion of the presidential powers.

    Pretending we aren't in a Constitutional crisis right now is political malpractice.

    This isn't business as usual, President Biden.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    99% of democracies give up right before hitting it big and concentrating supreme power in the hands of a benevolent dictator.

    Examine this change of logic. The democrats want a mandate from the people before they act antidemocratically? So that they can maintain the highground when they do an inherently lowdown thing? And they could do it now but they want a blue election first? Are you a snake eating its own tail?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    All I've heard from MAGA so far is that fake electors aren't illegal, followed by some explanation involving JFK and Hawaii. Now Trump himself is admitting that they're illegal, but he's immune?

    A lot more people are about to go to jail for him.

    Also, fuck MAGA for trying to nullify my vote.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    Surprised pikachu face goes here

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago

    Managed Democracy called for aid and SCOTUS answered.

  • source
  • [–] [B] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summarySpeaking to CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith's case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.

    In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith's "case should be dismissed" because it concerns official acts not private ones.

    Meanwhile Trump celebrated the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.

    The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the ruling would not "change the facts" that Trump tried to "overthrow the results of a free and fair election."

    "Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he's above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself."


    Saved 64% of original text.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Wouldn't their ruling not apply retroactively? Or if he declares it now it wouldn't mean anything since he isn't the sitting president?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Their ruling isn't new law, it's telling people what the law already said. Even all the stuff they made up along the way.

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

    And the definition of "official" is so gray it could be anything and not anything! Gotta love vauge interpretations from what is supposed to be our finest judges.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I particularly like that they hinted that some things in the trial were official and some things weren't, but they're not going to tell anyone what they are at this time, we have to wait for the appeal to work its way back up. At which point the election will be over and they'll just say "psyche, it's all official".

  • source
  • parent