1272
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
1272 points (99.2% liked)
News
23409 readers
3431 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Ballsy move. I support this
.
At least it'll put the GOPers on record rejecting it.
Why would they care? They're proud of it. Their voters are proud of it.
I think the Democrats need to do a much larger PSA about what exactly this means. I'm not sure 100% of Trumps cult, or many moderates, would be cool with knowing that Biden right now could have his DOJ lock up basically anyone in the US, with no reason needed, and then pardon them (his DOJ). This would all be actions that cannot be questioned, or used against the President as he has full immunity to:
Those are the 2 examples that the Supreme Court majority gave as examples in their "ruling", and they gave both a completely made up unconstitutional condition of immunity that cannot be used against the President, or questioned/debated in any way. These 2 items are a gift to Trump in their hope that he takes the white house and will allow him to round up everyone he wants and put them in death camps if he wanted. He orders his DOJ to do it, pardons them all, and it's all above the law with no possible oversight available. But I think if more people on the right knew that Biden has this power right now, BUT!, if some on the left get their way and they replace Biden on the ballot, and they win, that person would now wield this absolute power.
Edit - Extra words =(
The most effective way to get the word out would be a demonstration on Biden's part. He could show how dangerous the power is and get rid of the traitorous fascists who created it at the same time.
yeah like go round them up and put them in a room. you gave me this power. now resign. all of you, or seal team 6 takes you out. boom. then Biden chooses the judges he wants, reverts the immunity and rolls back all the recent crap. fixes everything. easy. no more of a coup than the Nazis have done. but now it's legal do it. for your very lives, do it, coz you guys are real real real close to fucking it up for everyone else too
Think if he did this to a supreme court judge, do you think they'd reverse the ruling? 🤔
They can't win without undecided voters who will hopefully see this and care
What we need is for a Democratic president to do something bananas and claim immunity. I bet at least the less crazy Republicans would suddenly see how that could be a problem. Maybe if Joe set one of the conservative justices on fire as an official act.
But seriously, they have no problem with hypocrisy so that probably still wouldn't help.
I think the Republicans would just use that as an excuse to do something even crazier at their first opportunity
Hypocrisy is a tool for the GQP
Provide a free retirement ticket to Guantanamo Bay.
Yeah, they wouldn’t get it.
it will happen easily if biden wins. If the court majority becomes 5-4 liberal republicans will absolutely hop on board. Thats why dems should also float an electoral college reform and an amendment to ban gerrymandering. Even a ban on courts creating "immunity rules" should be floated since immunity is something that shouldn't be handed out as often as the supreme court does it.
The amendment process is long and difficult and honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.
The supreme court has nothing to do with constitutional amendments. To propose one you need a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate (or 2/3 of states calling a constitutional convention, but no amendment has gone through this process). Then, it requires that 75% of the states ratify it.
There's no chance the amendment will even get 2/3 of the congressional vote, much less 75% of states agreeing to it.
to change some of the rules around the court you need an amendment because they're in the constitution (lifetime appointments, for instance.)
The 11th amendment was explicitly also added to overturn a supreme court ruling, so historically passing an amendment was not always a problem and if its a problem now maybe some effort should be placed into fixing the difficulty problem as well.
Or the President would need to use the new powers the court gave him on it, until the remaining justices decided to change the rules themselves.
The difficulty is that our governments and voters are so polarized that an amendment banning the government from drowning puppies wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting passed.
Half of the country wants the supreme court ruling to stay.
Unfortunately you are right on this one. They couldn't even get Equal Rights Ammendment passed and it was proposed in 1923. It got tossed around and talked about and got close to being ratified over the past century but ultimately didnt make it through.
Then in 2019 Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota actually sued to prevent ERA from bring ratified when it was brought up again. That's how much some states hate progress.
It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out though. Will they kill it immediately or will it sit around in limbo for a century?
I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.
They can if they support ranked choice under fairvote us
An amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
It's worth a try but don't pin all your hopes on it.
And that's only half the battle - then 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it as well
I thought it's an either or thing, as two different paths to possibly get an amendment passed, not that it needs both.??
You thought wrong, but I blame the school system. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=An%20amendment%20may%20be%20proposed,in%20each%20State%20for%20ratification.
It's understandable, as the proposal process DOES have two different paths (congress or states). But the ratification can only proceed via the states.
Upon re-reading, it looks like there is two paths, but both require two steps?
The first part, proposing an amendment:
Then the second part, ratifying the amendment: