this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
631 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4341 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] newthrowaway20 234 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Wouldn't this mean a president has an obligation to kill his political opponents if they're seen as a threat to the United States, and as an official act, it would be completely legal? Effectively making one man above the law.

Even if it's not seen as an official act, you can't charge the president while they're in the office, and with that power and a loyal justice department, you could eliminate anyone who might try to argue the legality of your actions.

Good luck convincing anyone to bring a case against the guy who keeps making people disappear when they investigate him.

This + project 2025 & a trump presidency is the end of US democracy. I don't even wanna start thinking about the impacts globally..

[–] Dragomus 75 points 5 months ago

Trump could now argue he, as sitting president, was threatened in his functioning by the new president elect, and it was an official act to block the transfer of power as long as the sitting president has concerns about the validity of the votes. (Ofcourse he always has those concerns)

And now with the coming elections he will claim the same and as a bonus he officially and in the open has the republicans refuse to certify a losing vote because that also threatens his position and impedes his functioning.

If the lower courts now claim his acts were not official he will just appeal that back to the Supreme Court, thereby still delaying any closure of the case well after the elections.

[–] DarkCloud 35 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Biden should just pass an official law that SCOTUS must be evenly split between major parties.

This couldn't be illegal to do anymore, as Biden will be immune, as it'll be an official act.

[–] jordanlund 31 points 5 months ago (5 children)
[–] farcaster 54 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying it might be a crime for a President to unilaterally invent a new law and make the federal government enforce it? Well, you see...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xenomor 45 points 5 months ago (8 children)

You are confusing the United States that existed until this decision with the United States that exists after this decision. As long as it’s an official act, the president can now do whatever it wants. If the supremes court objects, the president and threaten or assassinate the justices as long as it’s an official act. The President is now effectively a king. Read Sotomayor’s dissent in this decision. She explicitly states this.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] xenomor 226 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Sotomayor’s written dissent explicitly says that this decision makes the US President a king that and can now act with impunity. This is effectively the end of the republic as described by the constitution.

[–] FringeTheory999 93 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Ok, so biden can officially order the assassination of the right wing supreme court justices and Trump, then appoint replacement judges and lobby congress for a constitutional amendment permanently stripping presidents of their absolute immunity. Since his orders would have occurred while he had immunity, he’d be in the clear, he’d have illustrated the flaw in the ruling, removed a dangerous individual, and prevented future abuses. Win.

[–] davidagain 51 points 5 months ago (3 children)
[–] amorpheus 37 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats' achilles heel.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Biden can be the first President since Washington to give back the power to We the People. He needs some official acts that return the power back to We the People. If they're considered crimes by the right wing fascists, don't worry. It would take too long to investigate, prosecute, and hold him accountable. His old age is also a super power!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 182 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.

The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.

No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.

Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 143 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE if he decides to Assassinate a Supreme Court Justice according to the Supreme Court Justices!

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 120 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.

[–] notanaltaccount 35 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Biden doesn't have the balls to do this. It would be cool as heck if he did.

[–] chuckleslord 31 points 5 months ago (5 children)

No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They'll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.

Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

But he won't, and neither will any Dem presidents, which is what the right wing SCOTUS is counting on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LordCrom 135 points 5 months ago (2 children)

So Biden should just shoot Trump... Let the courts decide if it's an official act or not, delay delay, appeal to the supreme Court like all these decisions will be, and Biden may have shrugged of this mortal coil by the time all that happens

[–] resetbypeer 49 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's no how this works. He is a democrat so by default unofficial. No matter if he orders a hit on Cheeto by Seal Team 6. /s

Democrats = unofficial MAGA/republicans = official.

This may become the 1933 of this century if november the wrong guy gets elected and fast forward to 1939.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] just_another_person 112 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What he did was not official. Now the lower court gets to decide what is official, and it's being intentionally slowed down until AFTER the election so the current admin can't go ballswild with the new allowances. Fuck these Maga-locing shitheads on the SC.

[–] disguy_ovahea 54 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’m positive Cannon will decide that relocating documents to Mar-A-Lago was an official act.

[–] just_another_person 33 points 5 months ago (5 children)

It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It's technically treasonous.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 108 points 5 months ago

Okay.

Biden should officially execute half the Court with no trial.

[–] Buffalox 98 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

Did they just make it legal for the president to be officially crooked?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Makeitstop 79 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fucking insanity.

Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn't work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he's breaking the fucking law. That's kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can't really have the legitimacy that's being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.

Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well...

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin 74 points 5 months ago (4 children)

So, is insurrection an official act?

[–] Delusional 38 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Only if done by a republican.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] blazera 60 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The only sane thing to do, full on assassinate, or kidnap in secret and report youve assassinated, all the justices that ruled in favor of presidential immunity. Nominate a new set of justices, with confirmation under threat of further assassinations, bring the case back before the new supreme court to rule against presidential immunity

[–] [email protected] 33 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (28 children)

Yes. Remove the conservative justices, institute new ones, undo all the bad SCOTUS decisions of the last 4 years, implement standards/ethics/accountability laws for the justices, put greater limits on their powers, and then remove the president's "king" status. Also put Trump in jail for life. It is the only way to save this country. Today, democracy in the US is completely gone. It's over.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] njm1314 51 points 5 months ago

They don't even need project 2025 now.

[–] Got_Bent 51 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Didn't our founders have something to say along the lines of when the government becomes tyrannical it's a duty to overthrow it?

[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 months ago (2 children)

https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/historical/Declaration_of_Independence.htm

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 50 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Biden, I urge you to, once your cold has passed, begin officially eating treasonous Supreme Court justices. Who’s going to say it’s unconstitutional? Not the Supreme food Court.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pjwestin 48 points 5 months ago (28 children)

God, we're so fucked. SCOTUS is turning the Presidency into an autocracy, Biden refusing to get out of the way for a capable candidate...that judge sentencing Trump to jail time in the Stormy Daniels case is basically the only thing that can save us from a right-wing theocracy at this point.

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (9 children)

People aren't reading the article. They did not rule that he is immune because his acts were official.

They ruled that official acts, and not unofficial acts, convey immunity, and remanded to lower courts to determine whether his acts should be considered official or unofficial.

[–] JuBe 63 points 5 months ago

The problem is that they effectively expanded everything the President does to be an official act, and foreclosed a reasonable inquiry into whether an action is actually official.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago

They've already said Donny is most likely immune for pressuring Pence to overturn the electoral college. Yeah, they've remanded it to lower court, but it's already clear if the lower court doesn't go the way they want, the Supremos will just flip it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] chalupapocalypse 39 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Are the Dems gonna do anything or is America as we know it just going to die, "get out and vote" isn't going to cut it when they can just say it doesn't count

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Cosmicomical 34 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The key point here is what constitutes an official act. I would say an insurrection is the opposite of official.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PoopSpiderman 34 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The fix was in a long time ago. I’ve said it before… America is a shithole.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] homesweethomeMrL 34 points 5 months ago (5 children)

I see they have chosen violence. It is regrettable.

Arm phasers.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] JesusSon 32 points 5 months ago

You sure do get what you pay for.

[–] PunnyName 30 points 5 months ago

The coup marches on.

load more comments
view more: next ›