“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    324
    ·
    3 months ago

    Then fucking do something about it Joe! The DNC has been little more than passive observers to the raise of fascism.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      91
      ·
      3 months ago

      Since we’re talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.

      And to follow up on @teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world’s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        112
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s on Biden to personally demonstrate to SCOTUS just how dangerous the ruling was.

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          I deeply disagree with this take. If we actually care about the Constitution and upholding what it stands for, then we have to work to undo the damage caused by this race to the bottom, not participate in it.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            73
            ·
            3 months ago

            Good luck with that. You can “disagree” all the way to the concentration camp.

            • flicker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              29
              ·
              3 months ago

              You know what would be a fantastic way to spur forward legislation and law stopping the president from doing anything bonkers?

              Having the president do something bonkers that the evil assholes who are setting the field to make Trump a king, have no choice but to stop.

              • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                I like this idea. Republicans are desperate to prosecute the “Biden crime family” but can’t go after him because of this ruling. So Biden just has to do a bunch of illegal but non-violent stuff - like openly soliciting bribes - and Republicans would be forced to pass a law.

                For that law to be valid, it can’t be targeted at one person - called “bill of attainder” - it would apply to all presidents going forward regardless of who’s elected.

                Hoist them by their own petard.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.

          Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”

          Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.

          There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.

          Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

              I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

              • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                They can’t take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.

                • Nougat@fedia.io
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Still. The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation. Their messaging since 2015 has been embarrassing. They keep courting moderate conservatives that don’t exist and ignoring unrepresented potential voters who do. They talk about how they win elections when there’s good turn out without ever analyzing which candidates encourage high turnout. Americans want to feel represented in politics and we don’t. The Democrats need to do something that would weaken the democrat party but would weaken the Republican party more: they need to actively begin dismantling the two party system. We want election reform. We want the police to not be a hostile force against the general populace. We want the society we live in to benefit everyone and not just the kinds of people who can afford to finance an election campaign.

        The polling exists. We all know that neither party represents or enacts what the people want do. The Democrats refuse to look around and see what’s happening, preferring to rearrange the deck chairs as the ship sinks because that’s the only thing they know to do. And you know? I can’t really blame them. We the people have also been rearranging the deck chairs. We live in a country that only benefits the top but we all still show up to do our duties without looking at what’s going on in other countries where the people are standing up to their authoritarian oppressors.

        The worst part is the fascists know what they’re doing. They know to decay the structure by raising the temperature because we’ve become too complacent. We need to stand up to fascism in a way that we haven’t ever since McArthyism.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is an interpretation of the constitution, so what congress needs to do it to amend the constitution to explicitly state the president is not immune, and good luck getting that through

        • teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          They can amend it or they can pass law citing a different part of the constitution or other judicial precedent, then if it gets challenged the Supreme Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of it’s latest legal justification.

          Hopefully after we replace six justices.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        3 months ago

        It doesn’t do what it should.

        The point of the party is supposed to be long-term strategy and putting the platform over any one person.

        When people talk about what the DNC should be doing, it’s not some “gotchya” to point out that they’re not doing their job and leadership needs replaced.

        It’s just proving their point

        • teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          3 months ago

          So because the National Committee’s short and long term strategy is not what you’d be doing, you think they’re not doing anything.

          Do you do any local political organizing?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            ·
            3 months ago

            you think they’re not doing anything.

            What’s their long term plan?

            As far as I can tell, it’s only prevent progressives from taking control of the party.

            • teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              For now, they’re planning on getting out voters for the general election, and recruiting volunteers along the way.

              Most planning falls to state and local parties - which you can easily get involved in.

              Why haven’t you?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                3 months ago

                For now,

                Bruh…

                Do you know what “long term planning” means?

                If you don’t think they have one, say it.

              • Zorque@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                3 months ago

                So basically the only thing they care about is winning, not actually representing peoples values?

                Theyre more than just an election committee, thats what the DCCC is for.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      ·
      3 months ago

      I would love to see him detain every scotus justice and stash em in a safe house for their protection/national security. Give them no freedom of movement or agency over their lives… see if they change their tune.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      You apparently want him to do illegal things because he can now get away with it?

      edit: are basic norms being downvoted here because if republicans are corrupt af, we should not have any standards either?

      Edit 2: you’re not teaching me anything by telling me the Republicans did something more fucked up first. Do you people honestly think Biden would/could murder political opponents. He obviously won’t. He shouldn’t. Jfc

      Edit 3: yup I’m totally saying let’s do nothing about this. You people are brilliant.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        96
        ·
        3 months ago

        Apparently “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is now law.

        • Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So again it’s now a matter of “what is allowed” vs “what is ethical or moral”…

          We all joke about the high road of democratic vs gop approaches. But how much does the difference matter?

          The hard part is we all get it, Biden is now technically allowed to do whatever. Is that a reason to immediately do the worst possible thing?

          Should he now cast aside the law and commit hate crimes purely to prove a point?

          The courts will never allow such a performative action, but they’ll allow the creep of fascism.

          • Sanctus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yeah he should. Shock everyone. Show them how bad this ruling is. I’m sure there are impermanent ways to display this.

          • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            These people are proving that anarchy would never work. The second murder became “legal” they all jumped to suggest it.

            • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              3 months ago

              Murder happens all of the time in Capitalist society, too, you know? Even though it’s ‘illegal’ and all that.

              Anarchy does not mean no rules, it just means there is no state to enforce those rules. Communities can still enforce their own rules in Anarchist society, and one of those rules can be ‘don’t murder’.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                I know what anarchy is. You’re assuming murder would be forbidden in every community, but if a lot of people in this thread started communities, (at least they themselves) would be allowed to murder. That was my point.

      • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        No, I want him to call their bluff and rise to the challenge of meeting this constitutional crisis. The top court in the land has gone off the rails, and seemingly in collusion with a concerted effort to destroy the rule of law.

        Blithely waiting until the election to “let the people defeat Trump” is dereliction. This ruling may be curated in deference for Trump, but unless it is challenged forcefully it will not just go away on January 7th 2024 if Trump loses again. Because when the question of “What are ‘official acts’ v ‘private acts’ then?” comes up, it’ll go right back to the SCotUS the Heritage Foundation and their interpretations.

          • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 months ago

            Fucking lol,

            This entire thread is people giving you answers that range from reasonable to nuanced, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming about how the only options are murder or nothing.

            I don’t get to pull this quote out very often, so please, feel honored.

            What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The only thing I’ve refused to accept is murder. Lying about that doesn’t change it. Btw practically no one suggested anything, but everyone who did and said something besides murder seemed somewhat reasonable to me.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        we should have standards. my standard for a fascist is that he should not exist.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            3 months ago

            If it was as unimportant as you think it is, it wouldn’t be getting ruled on by SCOTUS. It absolutely does matter, especially with groups like the right who continually challenge laws to find ways to loosen or completely negate them.

      • SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        3 months ago

        The Judiciary has decided that the Executive must not be beholden to neither the Legislative nor the Judiciary. This is terrible, because it breaks the separation of powers. Now, if only the Executive wasn’t beholden to any of the other powers to force the Judiciary to go back to reason… Oh, wait.

        Irony aside: no, this isn’t a matter of not having standards, this is a matter of making sure that democracy is capable of perpetuating itself. If the organism gets infected by a virus that intends to mutate the whole thing into a degenerated parody of itself, it must send its antibodies. Not doing so means letting the last line of defense fall all by itself, which is even against the very spirit of the law.

      • lone_faerie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        We know for a fact Trump will use this to abuse his power as much as possible. The high road isn’t sitting down and taking it, it’s using the power that was just handed to you to do something about it. There practically is no such thing as “illegal” now when it comes to the president. Biden doesn’t need to commit murder to make a difference. He could, for example, expand the Supreme Court so the conservatives no longer have the advantage, or cancel student debt to get more supporters, or do anything other than cry about it.

      • Squirrel@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        He needs to act to safeguard our democracy, because others will not have the same hangups in doing the opposite. Acting with the power they have granted him in order to prevent future issues is not corruption.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        The precedent shouldn’t be “they go low, we go high”, but “play stupid games, win stupid prizes”. He probably wouldn’t do anything because the aforementioned issue, but should just send an assassination squad on the 6 supreme court judges alongside with other politicians.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          You’re suggesting Biden sends a government hit squad to assasinate supreme court judges?

          Are you high?

          • magic_smoke@links.hackliberty.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            No you’re right we should wait until trump orders the assassinations of rival politicians next January when he very well could get elected.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            3 months ago

            I mean, apparently he could now order a hit team to burst into Robert’s house at night, put a gun to his his head and say “Joe sends his completely legal regards” before leaving. Obviously killing them would be wrong but maybe it wouldnt be so bad to make them feel a bit of what they are unleashing, since conservatives often dont have empathy for things that dont happen to them or those close to them.

            • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              So…the hypothetical of trump using these new “standards” (for lack of a better word) that his judges set is justification for calling for the current president to beat him to the punch?

              Do you know what would happen if Biden did that? Best case scenario, is he IMMEDIATELY loses the 2024 election, and trump then continues the practice with the justification of “he did it first!”. That’s the BEST possible outcome.

              But it could go SOOOOOO much farther than that. It could honestly be the thing that starts the civil war 2 in this country before we even GET to the election. A government using it’s own resources to kill it’s own government officials. How is that not EXACTLY what russia does???

              Why stop at supreme court judges? Why not kill trump? Why not kill every political opponent you face?

              You tried to stop trump from introducing facism by saying it’s ok for Biden to introduce facism. Either way, this country falls to facism. You’re just debating which side is the new dictator.

              • Womble@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Did you missread what i said or just choose to argue against what you wanted to read? I even included the words “obviously killing them would be wrong”, and its not like that was burried in dozens of lines nobody will read through.

                I suggested showing the judge he could be targeted with his own ruling not killing him.

      • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        yup I’m totally saying let’s do nothing about this. You people are brilliant.

        What should we do then? The default assumption is nothing, give us something to actually work with or the assumption is true.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Not murder. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know. I know, no one ever admits this online so it’s probably weird to read

          The default assumption is nothing

          That is on you

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Republicans have spent the past 50 years screaming that guns exist to thwart a tyrannical government. Not that they bring tyranny to our doorstep, I’m not writing off the one thing they’ve admitted could stop them.

            The current brand of right wing fascism taking over in this country will kill millions if left unchecked. I’m not encumbered by the trolley problem here, the people who want to bring fascism to America should die if that’s what it takes to stop them.

      • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The only thing you’re interested in is showing how much of a bigger person you are on the internet. What we’re doing is speaking about all the ways this is fucked up and hypotheticals about how it can go wrong. For a lot of us, this isn’t new. I my political life time alone, I saw 8 years of rights being eroded by the Bush II administration with no real push back and once Obama got in under the promise of fixing things, a whole lot of inaction on rolling back any of the rights violations.

        The powers that be are taking advantage of how distributed the responsibilities of government are. If it’s so easy to lose rights, why is it so hard to gain them back. There’s always someone else to point at for why that is the case. In Nazi Germany, that was called The Banality of Evil. I see that everyday when some injustice is hand waved away as being too ingrained to do anything about. Police Reform? Too hard. Effective Climate Action? It would hurt the economy. The SC is eroding our rights? Have to wait for someone to die or retired(lol).

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        They are literally not illegal anymore. He can declare Trump to be a danger and send seal team six to execute him. He can forgive half of all student debt and transfer the other half to an unlucky dude in Oklahoma. He can forbid to be called Joseph to everybody else. He can cancel the elections. Very legal and very cool.

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’ve given up on this crowd. You didn’t say do nothing.

        This crowd only understands their echo chamber. Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

        In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          I got one. Present a new bill that says supreme court judges are not for life with no chance to remove them.

          Every 4 years on election years, but months before the presidential election, (so maybe spring/summer) they allow the general public to vote on their performance. If they get less than 65% approval rating, they’re out. They’ll be replaced by the new president, technically next year (since the election happens in November, but the inauguration is in January).

          So if a court judge is less than 65% popular with the public, they’re gone.

          And yes, I see the problem of “but the nation is so divided right now that neither side could get that approval rating, and all 12 judges would just be replaced every 4 years…”

          Which is partially by design. We need a system that fundamentally breaks all systems that keep corrupt people in power, and actively discourages the media, and politicians from taking this “us vs them” mentality.

          A republican SHOULD be presenting their set of ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

          A democrat SHOULD be presenting a different set of opposing ideas that benefit ALL Americans.

          And the public should vote on what will benefit them most. There should be no such thing as career democrats, or career republicans. It should be a free flowing liquid set of ideas that get catagorized as democrat this time, but based on the people in the election, maybe next time you’re catagorized as more republican than the other guy. So, this election you’re republican instead.

          Because everybody is so concerned about “The other side”, that everybody forgets one key thing. It may be two sides, but they’re two sides to the same coin. That coin is America. Right now, and for the past 8 years, that coin has been just falling to the ground.

          • andrewta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            thank you for presenting at least a decent idea. the ideas of shoot trump is just stupid. yeah biden can’t be prosecuted for it but the person who shoots trump can be. it’s still against the law and would basically guarantee a civil war in this country.

            while the bill is a good idea. would it actually pass? i mean think about it. right now the republicans own the court and will own it until the current batch dies. why would they vote for the bill? but on the face of it . it’s a good idea.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

          I know what you mean. It’s pretty freaking sad. This isn’t facebook, where there’s an 80% chance I have horrid views if you think I might have them. Yet they behave like it’s facebook.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Given that I’m a programmer who hasn’t even had time to think about it I wouldn’t know.

          Things that should not be done about it: murder. I can’t tell if the people suggesting that are all joking or not, but it’s sort of shocking if anyone is being serious.

  • inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Dumbass and spineless Biden and Democrats. The supreme court literally just started that America had a king but this dumbass party would rather take some stupid fucking high road bullshit instead of playing the game to ensure the fascist fuck around and find out.

    They don’t even have to resort to assassinations, they could really tell the IRS to audit 501© and remove their status from the churches and bullshit Republican charities, or tell the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and corruption to fuck over Republican groups and representatives, or tell the FDA to allow the sale of raw milk.

    Play the god damn game and be the fucking king if these corrupt justice says there’s a king.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      He doesn’t. Impeaching judges is the House’s job.

      You know your house rep is up for election this year?

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah but now he’s above the law, so I say do it anyway and overturn the ruling his damn self.

        • madjo@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          It sets precedents that you might not want, because if Trump or one of his cronies get into the oval office, they can do the same thing.

            • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              I think the problem is, if Dems do it first, they’re not better than the Republicans.

              Unilateral dictatorships are unilateral dictatorships no matter who does it.

              You can’t win in a game where one side insists on cheating and one side insists on following the rules. Our system of governance wasn’t designed for this level of factionhood. It should and could’ve been stopped the right way maybe 20 or 30 years ago. At the least, 8 years ago. And the very last chance was when Trump’s second impeachment made it to the Senate.

              But now, there’s no chance.

              It’s not even really “cheating” that the Republicans are doing. Most everything is getting a “legal” stamp of approval. Just in a shady way that clearly and defiantly goes against everything this country has ever been about.

              Hey I know another politician who was pretty popular for his time that did the same thing. Bright young man with a funny mustache.

          • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            3 months ago

            OH MY FUCKING GOD WHY DONT YOU FUCKING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL ALREADY FUCKING DO THAT!!! THEY DO NOT NEED OR EVEN WANT DEMOCRAT PERMISSION OR PRECEDENT!!! Goddamn a you fucking milquetoast losers who defended free speech for Nazis all this time and got us in this fucking predicament!! You NEVER understand who you’re dealing with!!

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            If Trump gets back into office, it’s game over, unless the people are willing to fight a civil war to stop him. Though even that will probably be too little too late because of the power vacuum it will likely create on the world stage when WWIII already looks possible in the next decade.

            It might already be too late because I agree that Biden pushing his weight around with these new lack of presidential limits would get messy. But the cat is out of the bag right now and it’s not going to go quietly back in.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Legally … but the law doesn’t apply to the president so long as they’re doing it for a reason they believe to be official.

        • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          The ruling more or less explicitly states that Biden could go on national television, say “Won’t someone rid me of these troublesome justices?”, have them assassinated, and face no legal repercussions because using the bully pulpit is covered by presidential immunity

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Farther. He could use the military or any branch of government to kill them and still get immunity. We now have a long, don’t get me wrong we always had some assumption that that’s how it went but seeing it on paper is an eye opener.

            Hell, he could sign literally every US asset over to anyone he pleases and there’s nothing we could do via a legal means. It’s not supposed to work that way but if no law constrains the office then the office is simply free to do literally whatever they want.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          The law applies to the president always.

          Here is what this ruling is for -

          First - if I order an enemy of the US dead I can be prosecuted.

          The president orders an enemy dead. That enemy is killed. The president cannot be prosecuted for that act.

          What this ruling does - the president may also not be prosecuted for that act after they leave office.

          That’s all this does. That’s it. If the president kills a maid in the White House he or she will go to prison because that is against the law and not within the duties of the office.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It doesnt.

            Nope.

            Agreed.

            No or means they can’t be prosecuted for it ever so long as it was under the guise of an official act.

            Nope, that maid was a spy and deserved what she got.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        – again

        they’ll still find some other excuse not to do anything the next time around.

          • eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            that was only a few years ago and i’m going to assume you’re older than 10.

          • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, assuming you don’t think the American rescue plan, bipartisan infrastructure act, CHIPS, IRA, and the first massive tranche of funding for Ukraine are useful. I don’t think you realize how short 2 years is for the legislature and how narrow the dem margin was. They achieved significantly more useful legislation than I thought possible. Unfortunately they didn’t codify Roe, overhaul SCOTUS, or harden our institutions against fascism, so maybe you’re right. Who knows what they could do with a larger majority and control of the House/Senate for 2 more years though - it would be fun to find out, if we could avoid getting all worked up blaming different people we mostly agree with and vote big against fascism.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              assuming you don’t think the American rescue plan, bipartisan infrastructure act, CHIPS, IRA, and the first massive tranche of funding for Ukraine are useful

              No more than the CARES Act or the PROSWIFT Act or the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 or the Hong Kong Autonomy and Uyghur Human Rights Policy Acts, under the prior administration. We’ve never had a problem issuing large bipartisan bailouts in the thick of a recession, rolling out buckets of cash for proxy wars, or pissing away trillions on expanding legacy highway infrastructure. This is not something unique that Biden brought to the table.

              Hell, Trump was even sending military aid to Ukraine as early as 2019. One could argue it was this military escalation and subsequent bombing of the Donbas that kicked off the war with Russia to begin with. Thanks for that!

              Unfortunately they didn’t codify Roe, overhaul SCOTUS, or harden our institutions against fascism

              Because they’re a party heavily populated with Pro-Life Democrats, they genuinely like the business-friendly / anti-regulatory bent to the SCOTUS, and they are more than happy to break bread with fascists just so long as the fascists can be used as proxies against enemies of US business interests at home and abroad.

              This isn’t a fucking accident. It is deliberate bipartisan consensus.

              Who knows what they could do with a larger majority and control of the House/Senate for 2 more years though

              Exactly what they did in 2009. Send trillions of new dollars to the privatized tech sector. Roll out new privatization schemes for the USPS and US Education System. Bailout failed banks. Increase the size and the authority of police agencies. And impose a host of new unfunded mandates on consumers - via tariffs, anti-union tax increases on health insurance, and private lending schemes - that only serve to degrade quality of life in pursuit of higher corporate profits.

              FFS, the lowest hanging fruit imaginable for the Democratic Party is DC Statehood. Easiest win imaginable to just hand yourself two free Senators and 3-4 new House Reps. And they won’t do it.

              • spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                You’re still making the mistake of treating dems like some single monolith. It’s a coalition of just about everything that isn’t MAGA at this point, covering all sorts of ideals, yours being just one small part. The answer is still “get a majority of reps that aren’t asswipes” and then we’ll get legislation we want.

                As to DC statehood, it would have gone through if not for Manchin because the Senate “majority” at the time hinged on his support. We need to win these seats with bigger majorities, period, and then they’ll pass better bills. The overwhelming majorty of Dems support DC statehood, saying “they won’t do it” is not a great take when they literally didn’t have the votes.

        • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 months ago

          They impeached Trump twice. It’s not their fault the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority to convict and only 7 Republicans were willing to put country above party.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Like Matt Gaetz, who should be in jail. And MTG, who should be in jail. And Lauren Boebert, who should be in jail. And…

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    ·
    3 months ago

    Ok Biden, time to do something about these fascists. They just gave you everything you need to squash the threat, on a silver platter fit for a king. It’s time to process the new information, understand the powers granted to you, and act - are you up to this task? Please don’t let America down, because you have asserted yourself as the only one who can now do anything about it.

    • Tiefling IRL
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      76
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Never underestimate establishment Democrats’ ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    3 months ago

    Biden: The Supreme Court ruled I can do ANYTHING I WANT!

    Also Biden: So I will do NOTHING! Please Vote kthxbai!

    • ExFed@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for, not just some adversarial power game. Claim the paradox of tolerance all you want, but fighting fire with fire here is just participating in the same race to the bottom that’s destroying our democracy here in the USA.

      • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        3 months ago

        Preemptive strikes exist. Law does not need to apply after the fact if the law is allowed preventive measures.

        And arguing about if one should take such a preventive strike, yes they should since the perp has already declared threatening intentions to cause immediate harm.

        • flicker@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          3 months ago

          The people arguing against using this new power because using it now makes you just as bad as “them,” are the dog-sitting-in-a-room-on-fire meme.

          "Using the fire ax is just as evil as destroying the house yourself! Get fucked. We caught the Republicans smoking. Make them smoke the whole pack.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            3 months ago

            Like when he broke up the rail union strike shortly before that horrible train crash in Ohio that unleashed toxic black clouds over the town?

            • Natanael@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              You mean when the rail union got what they asked for, because all while Trump supported companies against unions,

              https://michiganadvance.com/2023/09/27/uaw-president-says-trump-visit-to-non-union-michigan-company-is-a-pathetic-irony/

              The rail union thanked the Biden administration for helping getting their demands through,

              https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

              "We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

              “We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”

              You’re forgetting that the goal of unions isn’t to strike, it’s to protect their member’s rights, and they got their rights. Strikes is one means of applying pressure, Biden applied pressure by other means

      • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        If he has practicality no limits what’s preventing him from getting the decision undone and making it so that the president could never have such power?

        If he has all the power in the world he should also have power to undo that power.

        • Natanael@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          He doesn’t have legislative power, that’s the difference. He controls the executive branch, so he can direct law enforcement and regulator agencies and more however he wants. But he can’t single-handedly restrict his own power in a way the next president can’t undo

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            So tell SCOTUS either they reverse it and add that they’ll never do it again or they get “executive ordered”. If they refuse you “executive order” them, after all that’s what they thought wouldn’t be illegal. Continue until you get a SCOTUS who won’t refuse. If the SCOTUS wants to throw their lives away for their own stupidity, let them.

      • lone_faerie
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        The constitution has been ripped to shreds, spit on, and set on fire. Any moral high ground is meaningless at this point.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for

        I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him. I seriously doubt any politician at this level gives two shits about anything but themselves and their power.

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him.

          That’s fair; my statement was pretty strong. But I think we can agree that by comparison Biden cares more about it than his opponent, a known insurrectionist.

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        FDR trying to pack the crap out of scotus with liberal judges so all his social reforms would actually go through instead of being struckdown.

        • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          Modern dems cant fathom having gumption. All they have is furrowed brows while the repubs destroy dismantle and overthrow.

          Dem brow furrowing will intensify until GOP is the one true ruler.

      • Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Alternative take: letting Republicans do whatever they want and not fighting back or taking actions to prevent it, is what is destroying your democracy.

        • ExFed@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Unless you’re willing to claim we’re in a civil war, then I’m not willing to call Republicans “the enemy” … That’s that the real enemies of America want of us: to divide and conquer from within.

  • Cyrus Draegur@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    3 months ago

    Wow it’s a shame he’s a fucking pussy who won’t author an ‘official act’ to oust the supreme court.

    • bolexforsoup
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      You don’t need to resort to misogyny/sexist insults to make a point.

            • bolexforsoup
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Imagine thinking fake Internet points matter, let alone decide who is right and wrong. I thought those of us who left Reddit learned that lesson. I guess it takes a little longer for some of us 🤷‍♂️

              Tell you what, let’s go through your comment history and find all the times you were on the wrong side and make sure you adjust your views accordingly. Fair’s fair right?

              • burghler@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                You do you pal. I replied because you keep doubling down. I don’t care much to fit some homogeneous mindset so I’m fine being wrong. The fake internet point blackhole you got going does got you riled up evident by this engagement

                • bolexforsoup
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Bro YOU brought up the vote count! You are the one who acted like it matters. I literally don’t even know what the scores are - it doesn’t show downvotes on my end, so no I really do not care what the vote counts are but you can go ahead and feel superior about… I don’t know, owning somebody because you think you should be able to call people a pussy without having to consider what the word means? Congratulations, you won! Must feel great. You really brought home a W for free speech on that one. Truly this is what you should be fighting for.

                  I am happy to double down on telling people that they should maybe consider the language they use. If you find that offensive and feel the need to go to war over it I don’t know what to tell you. If I’m a sick puppy you’re at the vet with me too lol

      • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        Now I need to look up the origin of that word. I thought it came up separately from the body part reference.

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          3 months ago

          It did. It’s an abbreviation of the word pusillanimous.

          However, almost everybody thinks it’s referring to vagina, so it doesn’t really matter anymore. Even most people who use it think that.

        • bolexforsoup
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          “Pussy” is pretty narrowly used in place of “vagina” and is used almost exclusively as an insult to call someone weak or cowardly (outside of a sexual context).

          • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            3 months ago

            And what’s the problem? If it were sexist they would be using “stop being a woman” compared to “stop being a pussy”. One is sexist the other is just an insult. Grow some skin. This is the internet, after all.

            • bolexforsoup
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              is just an insult

              You are so close. What makes being a pussy a bad thing? Why is that an insult? Unpack that for a second. Use your critical thinking skills.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Lol and what makes having a low temperature desirable, because those people are cool. You really are digging for something to be offended by.

                • bolexforsoup
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do I really need to point out that this is a false equivalency?

              • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Because pussies tend to be soft and delicate and theyre saying he should be hard and strong instead of soft and delicate.

                • bolexforsoup
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It is baffling to me that what you just wrote didn’t sort this out for you.

                • bolexforsoup
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Jfc how bored do you need to be to have like four different conversations going with me. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I’m done

        • bolexforsoup
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          The block feature is readily available to you. Enjoy!

        • FlaminGoku@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          These are the fucking hand wringing “liberals” that I can’t stand.

          Feelings over Freedom!

          I don’t know where I fall because whereas I believe in equity for all and protecting the children and planet and all that shit, I also strongly lean towards swift and immediate retribution and don’t care whose feelings get hurt.

        • lone_faerie
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          And the f slur means “a bundle of sticks”. That doesn’t make it not a slur.

        • bolexforsoup
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          All of us learned it as a way to call someone a “vagina” to highlight they are weak or cowardly. You can’t possibly tell me that wasn’t how you learned it.

          • SoupBrick@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            So based off of that comment alone and the context surrounding it, do you truly believe their intent was to be misogynistic or were they using slang to emphisize their frustration while calling Biden a coward?

            • bolexforsoup
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Intention is irrelevant. Otherwise I could just call people slurs and argue the slur’s meaning is irrelevant. The insult is clearly associating having/being a vagina with cowardice and weakness.

              • SoupBrick@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, I guess I can see your point. I was under the impression that a lot more people were aware of the root of that word. I grew up reading a lot of books, so I guess that factored into my view. Thanks for the perspective, I am all for phasing out legitimately problematic language.

                • bolexforsoup
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I’m not 100% what your upbringing was, but at least for us in America generally you learned that word sometime in middle school as something to call other boys as an insult. You’re definitely well read because frankly I’ve never even heard that word until this thread lol

        • Pandantic [they/them]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          From the link:

          And despite what you may have heard, pusillanimous does not serve as the basis for pussyfoot, pussycat, or a certain related vulgarism.

        • bolexforsoup
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Damn I got got! What a big strong man you are! You sure showed me!

          Let me give you a little tip I gave someone else: the block button is easily within your grasp, if maybe a bit advanced for you. But i’m sure that with hard work and determination even you could figure out how to use it.

          Bye!

    • anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      3 months ago

      Always beware of the fact, that the only thing hindering an all-out revolution is your fear of losing the scraps they throw at you. Gore Vidal

    • Zombie-Mantis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      The infrastructure for a national strike does not exist in America. You need a lot of labor to be organized, and it just isn’t. We can barely get individual facilities to go on strike, let alone an entire country. We used to, and that’s how we pressured politicians into the New Deal, but organized labor has been dismantled since then.

      As for why we’re not more like the French, a lot of it comes down to this: They have more unionized workers, as a fraction of the working population, than we do.

      Perhaps we forget, here on our islands of leftist beliefs, but the average American is not a radical Socialist, Communist, or Anarchist. They are not tuned-in closely to politics, they are not media literate, they are not part of any active organization besides maybe a local church. They’re not going to upend their lives over something they don’t understand, without any way to plan with their coworkers.

    • irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because we’re exhausted and can’t afford to lose what little we all have. Even one day in jail can mean losing your job, even if charges are dropped. And a conviction could mean being stuck with only jobs that don’t pay a living wage for the rest of your life and few of us have enough savings to survive that for long.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t understand why we aren’t in the streets.

      We were in the streets for Palestine and then some seriously bad shit happened.

        • colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          Isn’t that exactly the reason for the second amendment? From what I learned, it is not to go to the gun range because it’s fun, it is to fight the government if it goes rogue

        • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not everyone needs to fight cops in the streets (respect and support to those that do!). There are other ways to fight as well: organizing strikes, sabotage, [redacted]. I think the main problem is that the fascism pot has been simmering for so long, that people are mostly used to it, and can no longer really imagine the alternative. We’re so isolated from each other, and desperate to survive that too many of us will “keep calm and carry on” as long as it isn’t our necks on the chopping block.

    • ours@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Terrible timing to bring up the French. They are scrambling to prevent the most right-wing turn since WWII.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m reminded of all the “France Surrenders” memes I’ve seen. Meanwhile the French shut down their country at the suggestion of the retirement age increasing. An unelected group of 6 people decide your king president can do whatever they want with no consequence and Americans just shake their fists at the cloud complain online.

      • Queue
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Then go have a nap… THEN FIRE ZA MISSLES!

  • Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    ·
    3 months ago

    “Biden Blasts Supreme Court” could have a whole new meaning after their latest ruling

  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    3 months ago

    What is to stop Biden from cancelling the upcoming election?

    Being now his powers are effectively unchecked, couldn’t he just call off the election as an official act. Rather than stupid shit like ordering assassination or deploying the military, just say “I’m cancelling the election until such time this ruling is overturned and a constitutional amendment is enacted that states that the president is not immune from criminal prosecution”

    • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      3 months ago

      He doesn’t need to cancel the elections. He just needs to wait until after the conventions, when congress and the supreme court are in recess. And then he issues an executive order barring convicted felons from holding federal office.

    • ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This protects him from prosecution but doesn’t require other officials to help him break the law. States don’t need the president’s approval to run elections, and Congress doesn’t need his approval to certify the votes of electors in the presidential election specifically.

      • Tiefling IRL
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 months ago

        He can just pardon all of them, and his discussions can’t even be questioned in court now. Hell, bribery is legal now too.

        • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          This reminds me of something…gaining favor of the ruler is key to your advancement.

  • Hawanja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    3 months ago

    I like how every single one of these comments are blaming Biden and the Democrats for a supreme court ruling that the conservatives and Republicans enacted. How about we put the blame on the people who are actually doing the terrible things?

    This is why the Republicans keep winning btw, because they’re united.

    • aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      At what point do Americans use that 2nd Amendment against tyranny as it was intended? Or is that difficult because the wrong party and classes have most of the guns?

      People advocating for leftists to go out into the streets with firearms forget recent history:

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl

      The supreme court just made this type of thing entirely legal as well. Not that it mattered. I have to Google the incident everytime because it didn’t even register as a blip on the national radar, but the feds likely executed this guy.

      I unfortunately don’t know what the answer is or if there even is one, but this country historically and certainly recently doesn’t take kindly to armed leftists.

      • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I don’t think that case is a good comparison to a bunch of leftists taking up arms against the state. That was protestor on protestor violence and involved two people. Had nothing to do with a bunch of Americans standing up to a tyrranical government at once. The Marshall’s response was disgusting, but that’s to be expected with someone like Trump holding the reins.

        Some better examples would be MOVE in Philadelphia who got bombed, and the black panthers in California who got the Republican led government to make laws against the second amendment. Still, I think these groups were too small, we just need more people.

        You do bring up a good point, but we haven’t really tried, yet. It might be different when the feds are actually against a large group, but they will never be deterred by smaller groups. The problem is actually getting enough people to care enough. People are very attached to their bread and circuses, and I understand. The revolution would not be an enjoyable struggle.

      • FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        What fucking “leftists”??? Where?? How is arming up against a fascist dictatorship “leftist”?? The simple fact is that Americans are spoiled fucking slobs who refuse to back up anyone that calls for resistance. On another platform I’m taking all sorts of heat from fucking brunchers who are terrified about trumpism but think arming up and being ready to defend self or neighbors makes me a barbaric ghoul and a “rittenhouse”.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          What, pray tell, do you expect from online denizens in general? We aren’t generally on here to organize a revolution or counterrevolution, we’re on here to kill thirty minutes on break from work.

          And you’re on here too. If this shit is so important why are you here on memeville posting it up instead of actually doing anything about it?

    • retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      To be honest I’m pretty energized. Not for Biden obviously, but just glad to see Democrats actually shifting their asses and just for people to finally be piecing together the predicament that the Democratic establishment has put us all in. There’s potential for actual change here, even if it requires going through some chaos and pain.

      The pressure of the non-vote threat is actually being felt by party leadership and they appear to be delicately trying to create an environment that will allow Biden to accept that he needs to step down. It would actually be huge for the party’s health if they pulled it off.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      We’re supposed to be evolving into a more free society… this is just going backwards.

      You have discovered the great fallacy, the presumption that democracy and freedom are the natural course of things: they are not. Every single inch of it we have was taken by force from kings and dictators, and they’re always waiting in the shadows for their opportunity to take it back.

      The peace dividend created by the end of the cold war has unfortunately made an entire generation of people who believe this fallacy, this is one of the glaring reminders that it’s not true. Democracy and freedom are things that must be actively maintained in perpetuity by everyone who wants them, we must be ready and willing to use all four boxes of democracy (soap, ballot, jury, AND ammo) to defend it for the rest of our lives. We must educate, we must vote, we must nullify unjust laws, and we must arm ourselves, because at the end of the day, violence is the one enforcement method that everyone is forced to listen to. It doesn’t matter how right you are if the other side has more people willing to kill and die for their cause than yours does, so we better damn well make sure that’s not the case.