213

What might the current president do with monarchical immunity to act? Sorry, that’s not admissible.

By Sidney Blumenthal (New Republic, July 4, 2024)

all 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago

If Joe Biden were as ruthless about his immunity as Donald Trump is, the union might actually stand a chance.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

As it stands, he is refusing to consider any sort of action or regulation against the SC in any way, shape, or form. He is neither checking nor balancing a blatant power grab by the Judicial Branch (as currently co-opted by the Republican Party and Nationalist Christians).

I agree that the column presents a rather extreme scenario, but holy fuck, it’d be great if Biden was willing to go even a bit in the direction of malicious compliance instead of doing literally fucking nothing.

And more broadly: his outright refusal to take any action whatsoever in the face of clear, present, and existential danger to not only his campaign, but the Democratic Party, the Constitution, democracy in the US in general, and anyone who’s not a white evangelical, is an inexcusable abrogation of duty to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s dereliction of duty, plain and simple. That is why I now think Biden shouldn’t be the nominee any longer: he demonstrably does not have the proper temperament to respond effectively to a situation that has existed and gotten worse for the entirety of his first term. He’s done NOTHING to halt the judicial overreaches and legislatural ratfucking. I don’t expect that to change. After all, despite how much ink has been spilled about how his comments were “taken out of context”, he told us so himself.

[-] Shanedino@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Isn't it congress that holds the balance of power for the sc now. They are the ones with the power to remove justices.

[-] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

SCOTUS just gave the POTUS the power to remove judges as well

[-] OpenStars@discuss.online -1 points 1 week ago

Previously I jokingly mentioned offhand the possibility that he might have been poisoned, but thinking about it more deeply given everything that is going on right now... now I am not so sure that it is outside the realms of possibility. We might (!?) be watching a coup right now, which if it happens slowly enough seems to have greater chance to succeed?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago

I would instruct my intelligence apparatus to investigate and report all activities of SCOTUS members, and publish real time reports on the Web. Time Roberts got a taste of what he enabled for the rest of us.

[-] Gustephan@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Honestly I want to see him just start seal team 6ing the fuckers until they walk back this obviously fucked ruling. I'm not usually one for the stupid games stupid prizes cliche, but God damn is this clown court playing stupid games

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

This seems like a fanfic, but the shocking part is that it is definitely possible : as long as 34 Senators agree with it. The only check on abuse of Presidential power now is impeachment. A President who gives this speech can act with impunity as long as 34 Senators agree to vote "no" on impeachment.

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 8 points 1 week ago

Impeachment isn't a check, it's a gesture

When you eliminate all but those who would consent to it....

this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
213 points (95.7% liked)

politics

18114 readers
3592 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!
  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