this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
455 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19073 readers
5069 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks 12 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Biden has been fighting Congress since he took office on this...

When we had the numbers, he said he'd "look into it" and then we didn't hear back till after the midterms when we no longer had the numbers to do it.

The reason it wasn't done when we could, is Joe Biden.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773

After he was elected, Biden appointed a 36-member bipartisan commission to study potential changes to the Supreme Court -- including the addition of more seats, as well as term limits and a code of ethics for justices.

The commission unanimously adopted a report late last year, in which they warned that excessive change to the institution could cause democracy to regress in the future.

The panel found "considerable" support for 18-year term limits for justices, but the issue of expanding the court beyond nine seats was met with "profound disagreement."

Because the bipartisan commission claimed fixing it would do more harm then letting the current corrupt court do shit like repeal Roe v Wade and all the other shit Biden now says was so terrible.

But if elected again, he still won't fix.

That's a big reason Biden has a 37% approval rating, he opposed actually fixing things. And just wants to maintain the status quo.

It's not a valid long term strategy.

Moderates just want to complain, they don't want to actually fix shit. We've been ignoring it since Obama's pick was stolen, ignoring it more won't magically solve it.

[–] UsernameHere 3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Ok, but what crimes are being suggested to change the Supreme Court?

[–] givesomefucks 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6... Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.

Although I've seen far less civilized but more permanent suggestions.

It's not even a crime, or false accusation.

And as an official act, no one can go after Biden for it.

If Biden believes trump is the threat he says he is, then he needs to do that. But ideally he would have expanded the SC back in 2021 when we had the numbers.

Like, we're backed into this corner because Biden decided to walk into it...

[–] UsernameHere 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is many supporters of Biden don’t want a coup or fascism.

If Biden engages in those acts wouldn’t that result in less votes and support? And also increase the chances republicans get away with a coup/facism?

Also, my understanding is a supermajority is required in Congress to change the Supreme Court. Which we did not have in 2021. Am I wrong?

[–] givesomefucks -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If Biden engages in those acts wouldn’t that result in less votes and support? And also increase the chances republicans get away with a coup/facism?

Republicans are gonna republican. But we're literally fight fascism so...

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

Also, my understanding is a supermajority is required in Congress to change the Supreme Court. Which we did not have in 2021. Am I wrong?

Can be done with a simple majority, which we had till 2022. If Dems really fought and tossed out the filibuster, but they didn't.

Instead Biden created a bipartisan committee to investigate if the corrupt Republican SC should be allowed to stand as is. He gave them 6 months, and after 2 years (as soon as Dems.lost the House) they decided we should just let it go.

At every step, Biden and party leadership refuse to fight.

We can't afford that. If trump is as dangerous as they say (he is) then we need to actually fight.

Even if we lose, it motivates voters for the next election.

But he could still, this very day, arrest them for treason and jail them indefinitely and no one can stop him due to the SC's recent ruling.

[–] UsernameHere 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From what I’ve read, impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires the same impeachment process as the president so 2/3rds. Not a simple majority.

But even if it could be done with a simple majority, your statement depends on the vote of Manchin and Sinema.

[–] givesomefucks -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6… Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.

I didn't say anything about impeachment...

From 2020-2022 we could have added justices with a simple majority after throwing out the filibuster.

We didn't.

We are running out of actions because we are running out of time. I wish Biden wouldn't have wasted those two years with a bipartisan commission to find out if everything was fine...

But he did.

Due to the recent SC ruling, Biden faces no punishment for actions committed in office. So he can jail Clarence and everyone else who's corrupt in jail and thus remove the conservative majority. Hell, legally he can have them executed for treason without trial, but I think Gitmo and no communication is more than enough.

There's lots of people in GITMO who have done far less

If trump is the threat Biden says (he is) then we need to do whatever we can to prevent trump.

Do you disagree that trump is an existential threat to American democracy and we may never recover if he becomes president.

[–] UsernameHere -1 points 4 months ago

For Biden to face no punishment for his actions a judge has to decide that the actions were official acts of a president. So what he can and can’t do are decided by a judge.

Again, you’re strategy for adding justices depends on the vote of Sinema and Manchin. But you’re blaming Biden instead. That makes it seem like a bad faith argument.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)