On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

221 points
*

Biden once again bringing a deck of cards to a gunfight because responding effectively and proportionally in a situation that desperatetly calls for it wOuLd bE DiVisiVE.

THIS position is a justification for calling for him to step down from the candidacy, because refusing to even consider reforming - let alone packing (or, dare I say, the newly-revealed presidentially-legal-if-“official” extralegal and violent unpacking) the Supreme Court is very obviously going to lead to the long term failure of not only the Democratic Party, but democracy in this country in general.

permalink
report
reply
-14 points
*

Biden isn’t a fascist and neither are the people he appointed. Even if he gave an illegal order, it wouldn’t be followed because his administration isn’t stocked with incompetent lackies chosen for their loyalty alone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Gaza protests: US officials who have quit over Biden’s support of Israel

Stacy Gilbert, who served in the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, left in late May. She said she resigned over an administration report to Congress that she said falsely stated Israel was not blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza.

Alexander Smith, a contractor for USAID, quit in late May, alleging censorship after the U.S. foreign aid agency canceled publication of his presentation on maternal and child mortality among Palestinians. The agency said it had not gone through proper review and approval.

Looks like everyone that doesn’t get in line with Blue MAGA is getting the boot to me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So you’ve found examples of folks moving on… while ignoring who they are…. Call things “blue maga” but that’s your label. You are “blue maga”… you make this shit up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
103 points

This. Right. Here.

It’s fine if Biden doesn’t want to play by the new rules – admirable in fact – but we have to understand that this is the game we’re playing now. Either learn to play the game or take your ball and go home.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

It’s fine if Biden doesn’t want to play by the new rules – admirable in fact

It’s admirable, but not fine! Biden must play by the new rules; the Supreme Court gave him no choice.

“Taking the high road” doesn’t just make him lose, it also dooms all the rest of us! It is unethical for him to be that selfish.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Agreed. Hence the “but” and the rest of my comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

I wish I could disagree with you but I just can’t anymore. I fear that we will look back on this as the breaking point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

2D deck of cards vs anarchy checkers, and America loses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

The Democrats aren’t going to “save you”. They like having the Boogeyman of Trump or <insert crazy Republican> to get you to vote in “the most important election in our lifetime”.

Don’t get me wrong, Trump and the Republicans will do more damage socially, but the Democrats couldn’t/didn’t/won’t stop that even when they control(ed) the White House, House of Representative, and the Senate.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Remember folks that this argument falls apart the instant you look at policies. Trump and his cronies will do more damage socially and in every other imaginable way. While not perfect, I feel the Democratic side can be fixed. There is no fixing the vicious and malicious mockery that is the modern Republican Party. For now, and if we fight, the Democrats do still listen when under pressure at least some of the time.

So let’s start artificially creating that supply, by demanding.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

While not perfect, I feel the Democratic side can be fixed.

Where is your evidence for that?

If you don’t actually have any please top distacting us from talking about actual solutions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The reality is the democrats can’t reform the supreme court, because they don’t control the House of Representatives, and barely control the Senate.

To enact reform of that type they would need solid majorities in both chambers and control of the presidency. That remains very unlikely. Even simple ideas like expanding the court rather than meaningful reform is impossible as no nominees would get through congress.

It makes sense the democrats make their campaign focused on Donald Trump. And as bad as the supreme court is at the moment, the democrats have bigger issues to deal with - a lacklustre campaign with a poor candidate. It’ll be hard enough trying to convince people Biden is a good choice as a candidate, let alone move into complex areas like judicial reform.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

The reality is the democrats can’t reform the supreme court, because they don’t control the House of Representatives, and barely control the Senate.

The Supreme Court literally just said Biden can do whatever the fuck he wants as long as it’s an “official” act, including having the conservative Justices assassinated and replaced by people he picks himself, confirmed by the Senate or not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

And yet somehow even with a Democratic House/Senate you know Trump will get plenty of mileage out of using this ruling to become emperor.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

He could and should “stack” the court right now. Supreme Court nominees only need advice and consent of the Senate, not the House.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I don’t understand how he can make changes to the Supreme Court using this new Supreme Court ruling. My understanding is that change requires Congress and the recent ruling just means he can’t be held accountable for crimes committed as official acts.

What crimes are being suggested to change the Supreme Court?

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Biden has been fighting Congress since he took office on this…

When we had the numbers, he said he’d “look into it” and then we didn’t hear back till after the midterms when we no longer had the numbers to do it.

The reason it wasn’t done when we could, is Joe Biden.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773

After he was elected, Biden appointed a 36-member bipartisan commission to study potential changes to the Supreme Court – including the addition of more seats, as well as term limits and a code of ethics for justices.

The commission unanimously adopted a report late last year, in which they warned that excessive change to the institution could cause democracy to regress in the future.

The panel found “considerable” support for 18-year term limits for justices, but the issue of expanding the court beyond nine seats was met with “profound disagreement.”

Because the bipartisan commission claimed fixing it would do more harm then letting the current corrupt court do shit like repeal Roe v Wade and all the other shit Biden now says was so terrible.

But if elected again, he still won’t fix.

That’s a big reason Biden has a 37% approval rating, he opposed actually fixing things. And just wants to maintain the status quo.

It’s not a valid long term strategy.

Moderates just want to complain, they don’t want to actually fix shit. We’ve been ignoring it since Obama’s pick was stolen, ignoring it more won’t magically solve it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The reason it wasn’t done when we could, is Joe Biden.

if I recall correctly, the words were… “nothing will fundamentally change”. a man of his word.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Ok, but what crimes are being suggested to change the Supreme Court?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6… Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.

Although I’ve seen far less civilized but more permanent suggestions.

It’s not even a crime, or false accusation.

And as an official act, no one can go after Biden for it.

If Biden believes trump is the threat he says he is, then he needs to do that. But ideally he would have expanded the SC back in 2021 when we had the numbers.

Like, we’re backed into this corner because Biden decided to walk into it…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

There was a whole commission, likely designed to justify inaction, that made a report in December 2021. It’s VERY easy to find lawyers who put a great deal of faith into the legal system as it is and despite evidence and their general political persuasion they get panicky at suggestions it’s losing legitimacy or a political body.

The report was bad then. I imagine reading it now would be infuriating.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t understand how he can make changes to the Supreme Court using this new Supreme Court ruling. My understanding is that change requires Congress

  1. Just do it.

  2. Have anyone who tries to stop you (including Congresspeople who would vote against it) killed.

  3. Call it an “official act.”

That’s legal now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

What about the voters that are voting Biden because they don’t want a coup or assassinations? Biden would lose all those votes. Then how does he win the election?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
  1. Biden replaces the treasonous court by any means necessary.
  2. The Democratic Party “strongly condemns” his “rogue” actions and chooses another candidate.
  3. Anti-coup and anti-assassination voters vote for that candidate ('cause who’re they gonna pick otherwise, Trump? LOL).

Obviously it’s ethically horrific, but (from utilitarian and game theory perspectives) it’s the least-bad option I can think of right now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Nope. That is not within the duties of the president. Declaring something official doesn’t make it official.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You say that as if it wouldn’t be a moot point once SCOTUS has five or six vacancies on it all at once, along with who knows how many in the Senate.

That’s how power actually works, you know. Don’t believe me? Watch Saddam Hussein’s 1979 purge to see how it goes down.

That’s the kind of power that exists here in the US now, thanks to the fascist Supreme Court. If Biden doesn’t use it against itself in order to destroy it, the next Republican President will use it to consolidate his own rule much the same way Saddam did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Kill the judges using his own immunity granted by them. Elect new ones that will take away this immunity. They are very obviously a threat to democracy and they themselves have said that whether something is an official order cannot be questioned.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Can you cite that last part? I didn’t read the whole brief, and that wasn’t in the summaries I saw

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

The president is now entirely above the law while on the clock.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

He doesn’t need to kill them. Take all their personal property using eminent domain, sell all their office space in D.C. and close the court buildings where they operate. Leave them running SCOTUS out of a store front in a strip mall in the most crime ridden part of D.C. He could even use extraordinary rendition (Thanks Dubya) to nab their families and hold them in black sites in foreign countries. There are any number of non-lethal official acts that he can use to make their lives a living hell until they consent to make the changes we need to keep this country safe from fascism. When your enemy hands you a gun, use it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Yeah, that’s a good point, I’ve seen a lot of suggestions that seem to go beyond the scope of this terrible terrible ruling. I guess he could order the military to prevent congress and the SC from meeting or doing anything. Then he could just issue executive orders, or declare war on a faction of politicians trying to stage a coup maybe?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

That’s what it sounded like to me also but I didn’t want to jump to conclusions.

Are these people suggesting that Biden assassinate politicians and stage a coup arguing in good faith? Seems like something that would be suggested by an enemy nation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I mean, if Trump wins the election, it might literally be our last election. They have a plan to dismantle our government. So no, unfortunately, I think they’re arguing in good faith, trying to use this tool the GOP has set up against them to save the country.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Basically, the Supreme Court decides what is an official act, so any actions Biden would use this new power for to correct this would be ruled over by the hostile Supreme Court. So the hostile Supreme Court would have to be removed, then the replacement could remove the right for the president to do all this. The first action would have to be to attack the Supreme Court. How bleak. Dammed if you do and SUPER dammed if you don’t

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

“Official Acts” are the acts within the powers granted by the constitution, and acts of Congress. Biden (and any future presidents) can’t just punch someone, say “I officially punch you!” and get off the hook.

This is similar to the immunity every judge and prosecutor in the country gets. Basically, inb4 the only result of this ruling is a few charges against Trump are dropped.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

The official vs unofficial part will be determined by the courts. I assume most cases involving the President will go to the Supreme Court. Do you see the issue here?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

You assumed wrong, as the supreme court said the trails court will determine what is and isn’t an official act. What’s the problem?

First responders get immunity while they are doing their duty. Judges do too. What exactly is the problem? Breaking the law CANNOT be an official act.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Breaking the law has been an official act for fucking ever. Did Washington break the law when he became the first president of the United States? Obama droned a US citizen. Andrew Jackson said fuck you to the supreme Court and enforced the trail of tears on the sad remnants of the native population that didn’t die to illness, battle, or reprisal attacks.

The problem, one of many, is the courts. These fucking judges get appointed en masse. Fucking scumbags. And if you have enough money, clout, or both you get to appeal to the Trump supreme court. I wonder if they would rule differently on an act depending on which party had the presidency.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Why exactly do you think the Supreme Court made a whole ruling about former-presidents being immune to prosecution for official acts if you think breaking the law makes something not an official act? There would never be a case when the president would need this protection because they were either making an official act or making an illegal act, never both.

And just to be clear, you’re wrong and all the justices on both sides are explicitly talking about doing illegal things while also doing official things.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

He can officially defend the country and constitution by ordering the arrest of all of the seditious representatives, and remove the recent supreme courts justices for lying under oath.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 6.4K

    Posts

  • 110K

    Comments