this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
1273 points (99.2% liked)

News

23613 readers
4990 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pixxelkick 152 points 5 months ago (11 children)

IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.

Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.

This of course means "if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die".

Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.

I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.

[–] [email protected] 67 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

As far as I understand the decision (IANAL!), the definition of what constitutes an "Official Act" is left intentionally undefined, so in effect you can only claim this ultimate power if the courts like you in order to declare what you're doing official.

This means, if I understand it correctly, king powers for Trump and nothing for Biden. They'd just rule everything Biden is doing as not an official act.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The ruling happens after the act. Who knows what justices we’ll have by then.

[–] jaybone 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I, for one, welcome our new unelected overlords.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

I, for one, welcome our new unelected , lifetime-appointed overlords.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I too choose this mans imprisoned wife

[–] Snowclone 3 points 5 months ago

Biden could execute all members of the court and replace them with people who will agree everything he does is legal.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

This is easy to get around.

Just start any order with "In my capacity as president, I decree that....."

[–] grue 34 points 5 months ago (10 children)

*hanged.

"Hung" is a... different thing, which the male justices might see as a positive.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] rayyy 23 points 5 months ago (3 children)

We are dealing with psychopaths who are itching to murder people and they vow to NOT recognize a free and fair election. VOTE people.

[–] pixxelkick 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I love how people will open face admit that voting is clearly not enough and then be like "remember to vote owo"

I think folks need to start digging into a little stronger stuff than simply voting, lol

Need to start looking into further legal options beyond just voting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.

If you're just standing on your soap box unwilling to go to the ballot box, you're probably not going to be willing to go to the other boxes that may be necessary. It doesn't take that much effort to vote, and the other things take even more effort than that.

[–] pixxelkick 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the main thing is, people have been banging the "just vote" drum for like 12 years now, and people are voting.

Trump isnt currently the president, nor has he been for nearly 4 years.

And yet the US's constitution has never been more eroded. People DID vote, but it doesnt do jack shit when the individuals in question fucking shit up weren't voted in

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It takes a long time before a Supreme Court Justice retires or kicks the bucket, doesn't it? It's only then they get replaced and that's done by whoever is in power at the time.

Democracy isn't voting once and immediately getting what you want. Democracy is a process, it isn't like ordering something on Amazon.

There are a lot of people who wanted abortion to be illegal. They voted in every election they were eligible to vote in for decades. And they got what they wanted, didn't they?

That's what you're up against. If you're whining about having to vote in multiple elections, remember the people that want to take away your rights aren't whining about having to vote in every election. They will even vote for Trump knowing full well he's not a religious man so they can get what they want. They just do it and they're now getting what they want.

And that's democracy. The people that vote in every election get what they want. The people that lack the dedication to do the same don't get what they want.

So either vote or accept that abdicating your responsibility to others you're allowing them to decide the long term direction your country will take. That's the choice you're making.

[–] pixxelkick 1 points 5 months ago

If you’re whining about having to vote in multiple elections Thats not what people are "whining" about.

Voting has nothing to do with the deeper rooted intrinsic issues, and voting will simply never solve them. Way more serious legal measures have to be taken instead.

[–] nomous 2 points 5 months ago

I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.

Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here

[–] postmateDumbass 2 points 5 months ago

So what about the part after the vote when those who vowed to ignore said vote do so?

[–] ZILtoid1991 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] TokenBoomer 1 points 5 months ago

I have to continue my streak of always upvoting Innuendo Studios.

[–] twistypencil 13 points 5 months ago (3 children)

You realize immunity doesn't mean declare what you want, and you get it?

Also It's not illegal for Biden to say he is invalidating his immunity powers, it's just meaningless. Now if he punched Stormy Daniel's until she agreed to give syphilis to the court, that might be illegal acts that fall under his official duties.

Also, you need the courts behind whatever illegal thing you are going to do.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago (1 children)
  1. Declare new rules
  2. Use any method, legal or otherwise, to enforce said rules
  3. Claim immunity

Congratulations. You've successfully used immunity to declare whatever you want.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Immunity is for crimes which is explicitly about breaking the rules, it's not about making up new rules.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And that's why immunity was step 3, and making up new rules was step 1. Please refer to the steps if you have any more questions.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago

I didn't ask a question. Please refer to the single sentence I wrote if you have any more questions about how your first two steps have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution.

[–] Carrolade 9 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The idea that you actually need courts behind you is laughable. Power is enforced through the threat of violence, this is how law enforcement functions. Courts do not have soldiers.

Know who does? Commander-in-Chief, now with full immunity for any official act, like, giving orders to the military.

One could say perhaps the soldiers themselves would be afraid of prosecution and would disobey orders, since they don't get immunity. Until the President pardons them anyway.

Otherwise only one last line of firm defense remains: the oath each serviceman takes to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That might make someone disobey an illegal order.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There's a quote from Andrew Jackson when he ignored the Court where he basically told them to enforce their decisions themselves.

[–] TokenBoomer 2 points 5 months ago

This says that’s an apocryphal myth, but I’ll choose to believe it.

[–] twistypencil 2 points 5 months ago

You need to have the military behind you and ready to do illegal things. When sworn to refuse illegal orders, this may not be so ready to go

[–] Snapz 7 points 5 months ago

You realize, no...

Immunity here means declare whatever you want, and then mandate that the military eliminate anyone who opposes your new mandate. This "fun" hypothetical is a president invalidating their immunity powers and then having that decree reinforced by death, that second part is the illegal you want in this equation.

It's done to "Save America", so it's an official act.

"If a president couldn't freely do rapes, bribes, frauds and incite violence without repercussions, who would way to be president?"

  • one of the two candidates for US President probably
[–] demizerone 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The coward Clarence Thomas would resign. Piece of shit.

[–] DoomedCracker 35 points 5 months ago

Sounds like a win to me

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

That was my thought too. This is sweeping and broad enough there's honestly likely multiple ways to just use the ruling to undo the ruling.

[–] foggy 5 points 5 months ago
[–] AdrianTheFrog 2 points 5 months ago

Would still end with him getting arrested/impeached though, I guess he could do it as a self-sacrifice thing and leave Harris to run

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

There's a difference between having the authority to do something and being immune to prosecution for a crime.

Biden doesn't have the authority to issue an order for summary execution.

If he could convince someone to commit the crime of killing members of SCOTUS, and it was considered an official act of the President, then he might be shielded from prosecution for it, and he could issue a pardon for those that did the deed.

The ruling only benefits a criminal President, and Biden isn't a criminal.

[–] TokenBoomer 0 points 5 months ago

Happy Cake Day, will you be my President?