this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024

572 points (98.0% liked)

Political Memes

5598 readers

4109 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

572

Doors are open (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by Potatos_are_not_friends to c/politicalmemes

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 63 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"You guys are reading too much into this... There's no way that any reasonable person would consider that an official act and this hypothetical president would surely be swiftly impeached and convicted. You're worrying over nothing."

Roberts, probably

[–] [email protected] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

He basically said in the opinion:

"All you liberal women-folk got your panties in a bunch. Let an alpha male set you straight."

[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago

They're already calling Sotomayor's dissent "hysterical." It's not an exaggeration.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah that doesn't surprise me at all. This has been his M.O. right along.

Rule the most egregious shit that pretty much anyone can see where it leads.
Call the opposition hysterical when they point out the logical conclusion of his ideas.
Pretend to be shocked when the opposition is proved right if he acknowledges it at all.

But hey, just calling Balls and Strikes guys. Nothing to see here.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Biden's first official act: No one convicted of a felony may run for office.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That act won't really hold up. That's not really an action. It's taking away something ephemeral. Rights are not in the physical world.

Now, jailing Donald for crimes. That's doing something physical. And the Supreme Court could rule against him, and Biden could say, "Make me." And Don would continue to be jailed illegally. And the Supreme Court would have no say over the impotence of their own creation. And we'd have an impeachment hearing that won't go anywhere.

But Biden won't do that.

Trump would.

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

We can dream, can't we?

[–] neclimdul 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People keep saying this but the ruling was he can commit crimes not create laws. Besides, Supreme Court rulings only work for Republicans.

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

So he can't bar felons from running for office, but he could hire a hit squad and suffer no legal consequences?

[–] Pilferjinx 1 points 5 months ago

As long as the kingmakers sanction it so.

[–] HootinNHollerin 15 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

And if trump gets elected he ~~might~~ will appoint even more corrupt fascist judges

[–] samus12345 15 points 5 months ago

Not "might," "will."

[–] [email protected] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Obama did it. He did it at least twice.

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

Before you downvote: [How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American

](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/)

[+] [email protected] -21 points 5 months ago (5 children)

No, the actual judgement is that its presumed, and the other courts must figure out what counts as a constitutional act, an official act, and an unofficial act

[–] Psychodelic 46 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I keep seeing this BS getting spread so here's an actual quote from one of the justices on the SC.

Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”

She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

I have no idea why so many people from the reddit/lemmy demographic feel compelled to downplay and "well akshully" this shit. People should be in the streets burning shit right now. Or we could just wait and see, I guess

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

We are in the wait and see phase. People should be protesting and burning shit... but the last set of protests had cops using excessive force. Most of us still have things we can lose. Not as many as before but we are all hoping someone else takes the trash out.

[–] PunnyName 8 points 5 months ago

Meanwhile, acts just be happening while the courts take their judicious fucking time to determine how official those acts were.

JFC, you can't be this dense, right?

[–] reflectedodds 7 points 5 months ago

The point of the supreme court is to make a ruling on cases that already went through the lower courts. So it seems weird to make an official opinion saying it's for the lower courts to decide instead of just letting the lower court decide by not making an opinion at all.

[–] disguy_ovahea 6 points 5 months ago

Right. That way it can be kicked around appeals courts until Trump is deceased.

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

The judgment included the Take care clause as enough to make any conversation or action with the Justice department to be fully immune, not just presumed. How doesnt the actually explicit parts of the constitution about military command be included in the absolute immunity bucket?