842
submitted 1 month ago by btaf45@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] foggy@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well to be fair, it'd be King Biden.

Just a far less scary king who might even work to unking himself.

Or something idk.

This shits scary.

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we've already seen how hard that is.

Of course, when Trump's second impeachment didn't stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said "Sike! Congress needed to act all along".

Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

Mueller: "I can't do it. Congress should handle it."

Congress: "We can't do it. The Court should handle it."

Supreme Court: "Nah."

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 1 month ago

one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts.

The courts that they knew they had stacked in their favor. That was always an intentional copout.

[-] DarkDarkHouse 1 points 1 month ago

Watching a panel of news anchors discuss this today, I was struck by the ashen looks on their faces. As if they had today witnessed a mortal wound to the nation.

[-] bizarroland@fedia.io 16 points 1 month ago

I don't know. Something tells me that they don't have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don't personally support.

I'm getting more of a "rules for thee but not for me" vibe but from the supreme Court

[-] Snowclone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It's not in human nature to limit your own power. I'm voting for Biden, for his appointments and admin, I have nothing against him, but my experience is that no one relinquishes power. Once the office has the power, no one's going to let it go.

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Vote King Joe I

[-] Klear@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I mean, who has a better story than Biden?

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
842 points (98.3% liked)

politics

18586 readers
4403 users here now

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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS