1748

AOC wants to impeach SCOTUS justices following Trump immunity ruling (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 2 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

442 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] kava@lemmy.world -3 points 2 months ago

You're not understanding me. I'm not claiming he orchestrated this decision. I'm saying his campaign is using this decision as an opportunity to deflect attention away from the concerns around his age that erupted after the debate.

Never let a good crisis go to waste and all that. Am I speaking Greek?

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I suppose he’s also using Hurricane Beryl as a distraction too.

[-] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago

It's PR 101. I'm not making a controversial statement. Biden would be stupid not to. He has competent campaign officials.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

This Supreme Court decision effectively ended democratic America, and Biden won’t get any younger.

[-] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

You're not making sense

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They're making a bigger deal about it than it actually is

If, however, the court’s decision frees future presidents to act in corrupt, even criminal ways, then the “rule for the ages” articulated in this opinion will have a major impact upon the separation of powers among the three branches of government, potentially giving far more power to the president than has been the case throughout American history. That will have huge implications for the functioning of the presidency and the stability, if not existence, of American democracy. source

It’s a big deal. Of course Biden would rather talk about the case, it undermines the entire democracy. His age will continue to be a focus of the election, Republicans will not let it go.

[-] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I've read a couple of the majority opinions and dissenter opinions

The president already had presumptive immunity for official acts. This basically just reinforces the precedent and sets up a framework for determining official vs unofficial.

Nothing about this ruling fundamentally changes Trump's position except that he has the option of claiming he was "acting officially" for example during Jan 6th. Then it will go up to USSC and they will determine the specifics case by case

Why does it not matter as much as it seems? Because a president already had presumptive immunity for official acts before.

Yes, it's important. But it's not the end to democracy. It essentially creates a check against the executive branch by the judicial branch. And honestly, I'm OK with that considering how powerful the executive branch is.

Biden's campaigners don't care about any of that. It's their job to get people to vote. They don't care about the truth. I get it, I would do the same thing in their position.

Everybody talking about replacing you because of your terrible debate performance? Blast the "End to democracy" tagine as loud as you can so that news cycle changes.

It worked like a charm, I think it was a good strategic move

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

So what am I afraid of? I'm afraid of, first of all, that people don't recognize what a big deal this is. This isn't an adjustment in the law. This is a change in our entire constitutional system. It says that there is one of the three branches of government that cannot be checked by the other two.

And I don't think that people necessarily understand what that means. And all you have to do is look to any authoritarian country. Look, for example, right now in Hungary, where Viktor Orban is busily taking control of other countries' companies that are within his country, because he can do that now. He's not checked by the courts.

Look at Vladimir Putin's Russia, for example, where he can simply throw his people into the maw of a meat grinder in that war because they can't say no. We have just — our Supreme Court has just done the same thing. source Heather Cox Richardson

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024

1748 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18821 readers

4596 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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