“(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 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.
Apparently “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is now law.
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.
These people are proving that anarchy would never work. The second murder became “legal” they all jumped to suggest it.
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.
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.
we should have standards. my standard for a fascist is that he should not exist.
Sure. Why not? It’s not like the next R in office wont do exactly that anyway.
Because morality and norms exist whether those corrupt fucks care about them or not.
But they’re not illegal things according to the highest court in the nation. That’s the entire point.
That doesn’t matter. I understand that premise and yet it still doesn’t matter
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re suggesting Biden sends a government hit squad to assasinate supreme court judges?
Are you high?
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.
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
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).
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.
would you care to elaborate on what you believe should be done about this?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
