“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-57 points
*

You apparently want him to do illegal things because he can now get away with it?

edit: are basic norms being downvoted here because if republicans are corrupt af, we should not have any standards either?

Edit 2: you’re not teaching me anything by telling me the Republicans did something more fucked up first. Do you people honestly think Biden would/could murder political opponents. He obviously won’t. He shouldn’t. Jfc

Edit 3: yup I’m totally saying let’s do nothing about this. You people are brilliant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Look in the mirror, dawg

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

We know for a fact Trump will use this to abuse his power as much as possible. The high road isn’t sitting down and taking it, it’s using the power that was just handed to you to do something about it. There practically is no such thing as “illegal” now when it comes to the president. Biden doesn’t need to commit murder to make a difference. He could, for example, expand the Supreme Court so the conservatives no longer have the advantage, or cancel student debt to get more supporters, or do anything other than cry about it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Nah, murder is the popular idea here so let’s do that

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Protest. We should flood the streets and not go to work.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points
*

Not murder. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know. I know, no one ever admits this online so it’s probably weird to read

The default assumption is nothing

That is on you

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You’re wasting your time, Best Friend.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

I will consider this harassment and report you if you do this again

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
  1. Lemmy is a rather small community by comparrison. I’m bound to run into you frequently.

  2. I don’t care what you do. It has no impact on me.

  3. If it truly bothered you, you would block me. It’s ridiculously easy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The only thing you’re interested in is showing how much of a bigger person you are on the internet. What we’re doing is speaking about all the ways this is fucked up and hypotheticals about how it can go wrong. For a lot of us, this isn’t new. I my political life time alone, I saw 8 years of rights being eroded by the Bush II administration with no real push back and once Obama got in under the promise of fixing things, a whole lot of inaction on rolling back any of the rights violations.

The powers that be are taking advantage of how distributed the responsibilities of government are. If it’s so easy to lose rights, why is it so hard to gain them back. There’s always someone else to point at for why that is the case. In Nazi Germany, that was called The Banality of Evil. I see that everyday when some injustice is hand waved away as being too ingrained to do anything about. Police Reform? Too hard. Effective Climate Action? It would hurt the economy. The SC is eroding our rights? Have to wait for someone to die or retired(lol).

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

But they’re not illegal things according to the highest court in the nation. That’s the entire point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points
*

That doesn’t matter. I understand that premise and yet it still doesn’t matter

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

If it was as unimportant as you think it is, it wouldn’t be getting ruled on by SCOTUS. It absolutely does matter, especially with groups like the right who continually challenge laws to find ways to loosen or completely negate them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

It’s the tolerance paradox. We can tolerate all except the intolerant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can you tolerate electoral reform?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The precedent shouldn’t be “they go low, we go high”, but “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. He probably wouldn’t do anything because the aforementioned issue, but should just send an assassination squad on the 6 supreme court judges alongside with other politicians.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

You’re actually being serious

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

You’re suggesting Biden sends a government hit squad to assasinate supreme court judges?

Are you high?

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

No you’re right we should wait until trump orders the assassinations of rival politicians next January when he very well could get elected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I mean, apparently he could now order a hit team to burst into Robert’s house at night, put a gun to his his head and say “Joe sends his completely legal regards” before leaving. Obviously killing them would be wrong but maybe it wouldnt be so bad to make them feel a bit of what they are unleashing, since conservatives often dont have empathy for things that dont happen to them or those close to them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

I’ve given up on this crowd. You didn’t say do nothing.

This crowd only understands their echo chamber. Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

Nice to run into you again, still posting this tired line huh? And you’re lying, because not only did I provide specifics, so did multiple other people (there’s more than just these, I’ve seen a ton). It seems that you might be caught in some sort of personal echo chamber.

Is there a reason you stop responding to people once they provide specifics?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points
*

I kept checking and no one would give specifics. I gave up on the conversation. But I’ll go look

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I got one. Present a new bill that says supreme court judges are not for life with no chance to remove them.

Every 4 years on election years, but months before the presidential election, (so maybe spring/summer) they allow the general public to vote on their performance. If they get less than 65% approval rating, they’re out. They’ll be replaced by the new president, technically next year (since the election happens in November, but the inauguration is in January).

So if a court judge is less than 65% popular with the public, they’re gone.

And yes, I see the problem of “but the nation is so divided right now that neither side could get that approval rating, and all 12 judges would just be replaced every 4 years…”

Which is partially by design. We need a system that fundamentally breaks all systems that keep corrupt people in power, and actively discourages the media, and politicians from taking this “us vs them” mentality.

A republican SHOULD be presenting their set of ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

A democrat SHOULD be presenting a different set of opposing ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

And the public should vote on what will benefit them most. There should be no such thing as career democrats, or career republicans. It should be a free flowing liquid set of ideas that get catagorized as democrat this time, but based on the people in the election, maybe next time you’re catagorized as more republican than the other guy. So, this election you’re republican instead.

Because everybody is so concerned about “The other side”, that everybody forgets one key thing. It may be two sides, but they’re two sides to the same coin. That coin is America. Right now, and for the past 8 years, that coin has been just falling to the ground.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

thank you for presenting at least a decent idea. the ideas of shoot trump is just stupid. yeah biden can’t be prosecuted for it but the person who shoots trump can be. it’s still against the law and would basically guarantee a civil war in this country.

while the bill is a good idea. would it actually pass? i mean think about it. right now the republicans own the court and will own it until the current batch dies. why would they vote for the bill? but on the face of it . it’s a good idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

I know what you mean. It’s pretty freaking sad. This isn’t facebook, where there’s an 80% chance I have horrid views if you think I might have them. Yet they behave like it’s facebook.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Or maybe your views are just wildly unpopular, that’s a possibility too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

would you care to elaborate on what you believe should be done about this?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Given that I’m a programmer who hasn’t even had time to think about it I wouldn’t know.

Things that should not be done about it: murder. I can’t tell if the people suggesting that are all joking or not, but it’s sort of shocking if anyone is being serious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

we should have standards. my standard for a fascist is that he should not exist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points
*

No, I want him to call their bluff and rise to the challenge of meeting this constitutional crisis. The top court in the land has gone off the rails, and seemingly in collusion with a concerted effort to destroy the rule of law.

Blithely waiting until the election to “let the people defeat Trump” is dereliction. This ruling may be curated in deference for Trump, but unless it is challenged forcefully it will not just go away on January 7th 2024 if Trump loses again. Because when the question of “What are ‘official acts’ v ‘private acts’ then?” comes up, it’ll go right back to the SCotUS the Heritage Foundation and their interpretations.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-15 points

It’s a straw man to imply I said we should do “nothing”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Fucking lol,

This entire thread is people giving you answers that range from reasonable to nuanced, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming about how the only options are murder or nothing.

I don’t get to pull this quote out very often, so please, feel honored.

What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

When the other guy is willing to knife you its no time to stick to the rules of debate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

He needs to act to safeguard our democracy, because others will not have the same hangups in doing the opposite. Acting with the power they have granted him in order to prevent future issues is not corruption.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

The Judiciary has decided that the Executive must not be beholden to neither the Legislative nor the Judiciary. This is terrible, because it breaks the separation of powers. Now, if only the Executive wasn’t beholden to any of the other powers to force the Judiciary to go back to reason… Oh, wait.

Irony aside: no, this isn’t a matter of not having standards, this is a matter of making sure that democracy is capable of perpetuating itself. If the organism gets infected by a virus that intends to mutate the whole thing into a degenerated parody of itself, it must send its antibodies. Not doing so means letting the last line of defense fall all by itself, which is even against the very spirit of the law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

They are literally not illegal anymore. He can declare Trump to be a danger and send seal team six to execute him. He can forgive half of all student debt and transfer the other half to an unlucky dude in Oklahoma. He can forbid to be called Joseph to everybody else. He can cancel the elections. Very legal and very cool.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Not illegal anymore bucko

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Sure. Why not? It’s not like the next R in office wont do exactly that anyway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-25 points

Because morality and norms exist whether those corrupt fucks care about them or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

You can’t use norms and morality to defeat fascists

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yes tie your hands while your opponent cleans their gun

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Not for long they don’t

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

The problem is that action must be taken now or those norms could go away forever.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

“Illegal” my left asshole.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

How many assholes do you have?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Thirteen of them and they’re all well guarded. How many do you have??

permalink
report
parent
reply
97 points

Apparently “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is now law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Turns out Nixon was right this whole time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Does this mean a president can make their tax filing an official act?

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

So again it’s now a matter of “what is allowed” vs “what is ethical or moral”…

We all joke about the high road of democratic vs gop approaches. But how much does the difference matter?

The hard part is we all get it, Biden is now technically allowed to do whatever. Is that a reason to immediately do the worst possible thing?

Should he now cast aside the law and commit hate crimes purely to prove a point?

The courts will never allow such a performative action, but they’ll allow the creep of fascism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yeah he should. Shock everyone. Show them how bad this ruling is. I’m sure there are impermanent ways to display this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-16 points

These people are proving that anarchy would never work. The second murder became “legal” they all jumped to suggest it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

There are way worse thing biden could do withthis nearly unlimited power

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.

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.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 8.8K

    Posts

  • 99K

    Comments