“(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.

  • @Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    724 days ago

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

  • @Hawanja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    584 days 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.

  • @inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    135
    edit-2
    4 days 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.

  • Laura
    link
    fedilink
    English
    103 days ago

    okay assasinate Trump, you’re legally allowed to do that now

  • @NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3205 days ago

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

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      915 days 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
        1095 days ago

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

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          685 days ago

          By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

        • ExFed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          105 days 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
            715 days ago

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

            • flicker
              link
              fedilink
              English
              275 days 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                64 days 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
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        245 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          145 days 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
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            25 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              35 days 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
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                35 days 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  45 days ago

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

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        175 days 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
        75 days 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
          25 days 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
        325 days 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
          175 days 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
            215 days 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
              85 days 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?

              • @Zorque@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                155 days 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
      485 days 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
      39
      edit-2
      5 days 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
        965 days ago

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

        • @Beetschnapps@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          17
          edit-2
          5 days 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
            64 days 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
            35 days 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
              124 days 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
                14 days 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.

            • Anvil Lavigne
              link
              English
              54 days ago

              oh, look, it’s one of these again.

      • @Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        46
        edit-2
        5 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            114 days 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
              2
              edit-2
              4 days 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.

          • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            94 days 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.

      • @lone_faerie
        link
        English
        125 days 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.

      • @SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        155 days 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.

      • @Squirrel@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        105 days 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.

      • Todd Bonzalez
        link
        fedilink
        English
        85 days 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
          5
          edit-2
          4 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            64 days 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.

      • @ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        95 days 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.

          • @Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            85 days 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
              65 days 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
                3
                edit-2
                4 days 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.

      • @Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        6
        edit-2
        4 days 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).

      • @andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 days 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
          95 days 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
            14 days 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
          15 days 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
          55 days 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.

      • @Tja@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 days 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.

    • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      194 days 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
        314 days 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
          44 days 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.

          • @FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            144 days 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!!

            • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              4 days 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.

          • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            24 days 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
        184 days 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
          34 days 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
            24 days 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
          13 days 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
            23 days 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
        18
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        – again

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

          • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            34 days 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
            34 days 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
              34 days 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
                24 days 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
          84 days 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
          54 days 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…

    • Zombie-Mantis
      link
      fedilink
      English
      314 days 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.

    • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      114 days 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.

    • @anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      344 days 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

    • @irotsoma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      314 days 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
      284 days 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.

      • Armok: God of Blood
        link
        fedilink
        English
        104 days ago

        Because people are spineless cowards that won’t meet the fascist police with armed force in the streets.

        • @colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          154 days 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
          124 days 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
      114 days ago

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

      • Queue
        link
        English
        44 days ago

        Then go have a nap… THEN FIRE ZA MISSLES!

  • @crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1085 days 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.

    • Fire Witch
      link
      English
      76
      edit-2
      5 days ago

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

  • @BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    985 days ago

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

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

    • ExFed
      link
      fedilink
      English
      535 days 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
        365 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          225 days 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
            145 days 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
              14
              edit-2
              4 days 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

      • @lone_faerie
        link
        English
        125 days ago

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

      • @GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        145 days 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
          55 days 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
            65 days 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.

      • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        95 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 days 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
        95 days 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
          95 days 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
        75 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 days 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.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿
        link
        fedilink
        English
        45 days ago

        Only you plebs argue about the constitution while the people in charge treat it like a napkin.