“(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.

  • @NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    33311 months 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
      9211 months 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
        11511 months ago

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

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          7211 months ago

          By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

        • ExFed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1011 months 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
            7411 months ago

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

            • flicker
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2911 months 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.

              • Boomer Humor Doomergod
                link
                fedilink
                English
                611 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2611 months 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
          1411 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months 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
              311 months 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months 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
                  411 months ago

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

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1811 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        711 months 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
          211 months 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
        3411 months 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
          1711 months 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
            2211 months 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
              811 months 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
                1511 months 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
      4911 months 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.

  • @neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16711 months ago

    So, Biden can order seal team 6 to permanently fix the Supreme Court by removing 6 and leaving 3 alive. Gotcha.

    After all, those 6 argued that he has the right to do so.

    • TunaCowboy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      8411 months ago

      Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!

        • @A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!

          When They Go Low, We Go Die

          Chapter 3

          Marjorie smiled with great satisfaction as she looked at the crowd and began to check the rifle in her arms to make sure there was a round in the chamber.

          2 men with giant beer guts - who each wore different flavors of Punisher-style skull masks and were covered head to toe in pointlessly elaborate tactical surplus gear as if they were cosplaying their favorite Call of Duty characters - began dragging another elderly man up to the makeshift platform.

          The white-haired old man was dressed in a finely tailored dark blue suit with a little American flag lapel pin next to his tie. It looked so similar to the one that so many others in his cohort had adorned for probably the last 20 or so years, but he had been blindfolded by the men before being brought before the stage so he couldn’t see how many others still wore it or who had switched to the golden lion that… “the others…” now wore exclusively.

          The octogenarian ghost of a man feebly began to speak (not shout) loudly in protest as if trying to reason with whomever might be in charge, but the 2 pig-like men grinned and said nothing. They began tying his hands behind him against a wooden pole covered with small holes, indentations and spatters of red. As the grinning pigs both stepped away from the geriatric man secured to the pole, the mob just below him roared with wild bloodlust over his inaudible words drowning them out over and over again with : “USA! USA! USA! USA!”

          Marjorie laughed and took one hand away from the rifle to quiet the crowd so they could hear the old man’s words :

          “Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Point of order! I’m reclaiming my time! I’d like the gentle-lady to put down the firearm she just picked up, Mr. Ch-”

          …he was cut off with a loud and sudden BANG as he slumped into a dark puddle of red slowly expanding across the stage floor.

          The crowd roared and resumed its repeated chant…

          …and another blindfolded well-dressed elderly figure was walked up to the pole.

          Quoting the entire comment you’re replying to is kinda redundant

    • @Bye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3511 months ago

      Only if he claims it’s an official act though! Don’t forget that part! Write “official act as president” on everything!

        • @NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          It doesn’t have to be an executive order, he’s in charge of the military. Any command he gives them is an official act, and can’t be questioned now.

          And then he can pardon them as they don’t have the same immunity as he now has. Pardons are also official acts.

          • Natanael
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            Only for federal crimes, but that covers most things involving the military anyway

    • @xenomor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2011 months ago

      Just tell Joe that there are six Palestinian children on the court and he’ll get right on it.

    • @Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      711 months ago

      Biden fucking dumbass going blast no kings well I can promise you if Trump wins exactly how he will act. He will take Full of advantage of this ruling.

      Best thing Biden can do but he want is take advantage of it to in helping out the American people.

    • bluGill
      link
      fedilink
      111 months ago

      It is up to congress to stop that not the courts. He should be impeached if he tries that.

  • @inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    139
    edit-2
    11 months 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.

    • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1911 months 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
        3111 months ago

        Yeah but now he’s above the law, so I say do it anyway and overturn the ruling his damn self.

        • madjo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          411 months 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.

            • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              11 months 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.

          • @FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1411 months 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!!

          • @Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            211 months 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
        1811 months 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
          311 months 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
            211 months 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
          111 months 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
            211 months 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
        19
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        – again

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

          • @spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months 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
              311 months 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
                211 months 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.

          • @eldavi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            311 months ago

            that was only a few years ago and i’m going to assume you’re older than 10.

        • @Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          811 months 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
          511 months 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…

  • @crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10811 months 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.

    • Tiefling IRL
      link
      fedilink
      English
      76
      edit-2
      11 months ago

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

      • @ZK686@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        Never mind the entire United States political system right? Let’s just ignore how our judicial system is set up, because, some liberals and democrats are mad that things aren’t going their way!

        • @FlaminGoku@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          It hilarious because all of your gotchas are GOP projection. Gerrymandering is used by the GOP because reality has a liberal bias and they have to cut up counties to let them win.

    • @fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 months ago

      These threads are awash with comments like this but you can’t avoid fascism by becoming a fascist.

      Shit is fucked but arbitrary killing is not the solution.

      • @Delusional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        311 months ago

        Well republican fascism isn’t being stopped by the normal way of doing things since they don’t even take the law into consideration and keep fighting dirty. Seems to me that someone needs to fight dirty against them. As long as the rule of law and checks and balances can be continued afterwards then we’re good but currently, we’re heading into christofascism.

  • @BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    10011 months 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
      5611 months 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
        3611 months 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
          2111 months 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.

        • Natanael
          link
          fedilink
          English
          711 months ago

          Biden has moved worker rights and more forwards, what’s your point?

          • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1411 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              13
              edit-2
              11 months 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

      • @GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1311 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          511 months 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
            611 months 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.

      • @mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        911 months 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
          911 months 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.

      • @ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        911 months 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
          111 months 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.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

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

  • Cyrus Draegur
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9911 months ago

    Wow it’s a shame he’s a fucking pussy who won’t author an ‘official act’ to oust the supreme court.

          • @kitnaht@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            20
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            That would be xenophobic, because the word is used everywhere in the UK constantly. (/s of course)

            Edit: The removed comment above was mine, and I told Bolex that using the word pussy isn’t misogynistic, just like calling someone a dick isn’t misandrist… World News mods didn’t like that though because people were agreeing with me…and we can’t have anyone calling out the victim-olympics, wouldn’t want that!

            • Rex GNŪrum
              link
              fedilink
              English
              211 months ago

              How dare you? Haven’t you seen the World News logo? This is a criticism-free zone.

          • Lightor
            link
            fedilink
            English
            511 months ago

            They’re not the one crying about a bad word online lol

            • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Imagine thinking fake Internet points matter, let alone decide who is right and wrong. I thought those of us who left Reddit learned that lesson. I guess it takes a little longer for some of us 🤷‍♂️

              Tell you what, let’s go through your comment history and find all the times you were on the wrong side and make sure you adjust your views accordingly. Fair’s fair right?

              • burghler
                link
                fedilink
                English
                211 months ago

                You do you pal. I replied because you keep doubling down. I don’t care much to fit some homogeneous mindset so I’m fine being wrong. The fake internet point blackhole you got going does got you riled up evident by this engagement

                • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Bro YOU brought up the vote count! You are the one who acted like it matters. I literally don’t even know what the scores are - it doesn’t show downvotes on my end, so no I really do not care what the vote counts are but you can go ahead and feel superior about… I don’t know, owning somebody because you think you should be able to call people a pussy without having to consider what the word means? Congratulations, you won! Must feel great. You really brought home a W for free speech on that one. Truly this is what you should be fighting for.

                  I am happy to double down on telling people that they should maybe consider the language they use. If you find that offensive and feel the need to go to war over it I don’t know what to tell you. If I’m a sick puppy you’re at the vet with me too lol

      • @CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1111 months ago

        Now I need to look up the origin of that word. I thought it came up separately from the body part reference.

        • @Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1811 months ago

          It did. It’s an abbreviation of the word pusillanimous.

          However, almost everybody thinks it’s referring to vagina, so it doesn’t really matter anymore. Even most people who use it think that.

        • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          “Pussy” is pretty narrowly used in place of “vagina” and is used almost exclusively as an insult to call someone weak or cowardly (outside of a sexual context).

          • theprogressivist
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1411 months ago

            And what’s the problem? If it were sexist they would be using “stop being a woman” compared to “stop being a pussy”. One is sexist the other is just an insult. Grow some skin. This is the internet, after all.

            • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              411 months ago

              is just an insult

              You are so close. What makes being a pussy a bad thing? Why is that an insult? Unpack that for a second. Use your critical thinking skills.

              • Lightor
                link
                fedilink
                English
                311 months ago

                Lol and what makes having a low temperature desirable, because those people are cool. You really are digging for something to be offended by.

        • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          All of us learned it as a way to call someone a “vagina” to highlight they are weak or cowardly. You can’t possibly tell me that wasn’t how you learned it.

          • @SoupBrick@yiffit.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            So based off of that comment alone and the context surrounding it, do you truly believe their intent was to be misogynistic or were they using slang to emphisize their frustration while calling Biden a coward?

            • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Intention is irrelevant. Otherwise I could just call people slurs and argue the slur’s meaning is irrelevant. The insult is clearly associating having/being a vagina with cowardice and weakness.

              • @SoupBrick@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                111 months ago

                Yeah, I guess I can see your point. I was under the impression that a lot more people were aware of the root of that word. I grew up reading a lot of books, so I guess that factored into my view. Thanks for the perspective, I am all for phasing out legitimately problematic language.

                • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  111 months ago

                  I’m not 100% what your upbringing was, but at least for us in America generally you learned that word sometime in middle school as something to call other boys as an insult. You’re definitely well read because frankly I’ve never even heard that word until this thread lol

        • Pandantic [they/them]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          From the link:

          And despite what you may have heard, pusillanimous does not serve as the basis for pussyfoot, pussycat, or a certain related vulgarism.

        • @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Damn I got got! What a big strong man you are! You sure showed me!

          Let me give you a little tip I gave someone else: the block button is easily within your grasp, if maybe a bit advanced for you. But i’m sure that with hard work and determination even you could figure out how to use it.

          Bye!

    • @anticolonialist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3511 months 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

    • Zombie-Mantis
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3111 months 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.

    • irotsoma
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3011 months 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
      2811 months 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.

        • @colmear@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1511 months 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
          1211 months 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
      1111 months ago

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

    • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1111 months 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.

  • @Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    7411 months ago

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

  • @absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6911 months ago

    What is to stop Biden from cancelling the upcoming election?

    Being now his powers are effectively unchecked, couldn’t he just call off the election as an official act. Rather than stupid shit like ordering assassination or deploying the military, just say “I’m cancelling the election until such time this ruling is overturned and a constitutional amendment is enacted that states that the president is not immune from criminal prosecution”

    • @RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5511 months ago

      He doesn’t need to cancel the elections. He just needs to wait until after the conventions, when congress and the supreme court are in recess. And then he issues an executive order barring convicted felons from holding federal office.

    • @ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      This protects him from prosecution but doesn’t require other officials to help him break the law. States don’t need the president’s approval to run elections, and Congress doesn’t need his approval to certify the votes of electors in the presidential election specifically.

      • Tiefling IRL
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1211 months ago

        He can just pardon all of them, and his discussions can’t even be questioned in court now. Hell, bribery is legal now too.

      • @absGeekNZ@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        Ok, fair enough.

        I’m not from the US so my understanding of your system is surface level.

        Could he give himself the power to do this?

        • @MartianSands@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          811 months ago

          The president can’t actually make law, as far as I understand it. He, and the various offices managed by the executive branch, apply and enforce the law which Congress has written (give or take some interpretation by the courts).

          Sometimes of those laws specifically give the executive broad enough authority over something that it’s very similar to the president being able to write laws about it, but it’s not quite the same and it cant overrule actual laws

        • Zombie-Mantis
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          The US government is based on the idea of separation of powers, and making the President as weak as possible while still being able to do his job. The President can’t just decide he has a new authority, Congress has to sign legislation that delegates a specific authority to the President. That authority is typically organized in the from of a Cabinet office, which is filled with the advise and consent or Congress.

          America was made to abolish kings, that’s why this ruling is so ludicrous, so antithetical to the very Constitution the court is supposed to uphold, and why people are so up in arms about it.

        • @Joncash2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          Only in times of war. It’s literally one of the checks and balances to specifically prevent a president from stopping an election. Now, if we start a full blown war with Russia…

      • @shottymcb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        He’s the commander in chief of the US military. If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority, it’s essentially unlimited.

    • @anlumo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4711 months ago

      Probably a lot longer. These SCOTUS decrees will last until the US crumbles to dust.

      Although, they might have accellerated the timeline towards the end significantly.

    • skulblaka
      link
      fedilink
      English
      911 months ago

      Trump’s election proved that most of America’s governmental system was based around a series of “gentlemen’s agreements” and an expectation of fair play. America is not resilient to betrayal in any fashion. If one person stops respecting the rule of fair play the entire system crumbles.

  • @Hawanja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    6011 months 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.

    • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      At what point do Americans use that 2nd Amendment against tyranny as it was intended? Or is that difficult because the wrong party and classes have most of the guns?

      People advocating for leftists to go out into the streets with firearms forget recent history:

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

      The supreme court just made this type of thing entirely legal as well. Not that it mattered. I have to Google the incident everytime because it didn’t even register as a blip on the national radar, but the feds likely executed this guy.

      I unfortunately don’t know what the answer is or if there even is one, but this country historically and certainly recently doesn’t take kindly to armed leftists.

      • @TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        14
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I don’t think that case is a good comparison to a bunch of leftists taking up arms against the state. That was protestor on protestor violence and involved two people. Had nothing to do with a bunch of Americans standing up to a tyrranical government at once. The Marshall’s response was disgusting, but that’s to be expected with someone like Trump holding the reins.

        Some better examples would be MOVE in Philadelphia who got bombed, and the black panthers in California who got the Republican led government to make laws against the second amendment. Still, I think these groups were too small, we just need more people.

        You do bring up a good point, but we haven’t really tried, yet. It might be different when the feds are actually against a large group, but they will never be deterred by smaller groups. The problem is actually getting enough people to care enough. People are very attached to their bread and circuses, and I understand. The revolution would not be an enjoyable struggle.

      • @FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        411 months ago

        What fucking “leftists”??? Where?? How is arming up against a fascist dictatorship “leftist”?? The simple fact is that Americans are spoiled fucking slobs who refuse to back up anyone that calls for resistance. On another platform I’m taking all sorts of heat from fucking brunchers who are terrified about trumpism but think arming up and being ready to defend self or neighbors makes me a barbaric ghoul and a “rittenhouse”.

        • @aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          What, pray tell, do you expect from online denizens in general? We aren’t generally on here to organize a revolution or counterrevolution, we’re on here to kill thirty minutes on break from work.

          And you’re on here too. If this shit is so important why are you here on memeville posting it up instead of actually doing anything about it?

    • @retrospectology@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      To be honest I’m pretty energized. Not for Biden obviously, but just glad to see Democrats actually shifting their asses and just for people to finally be piecing together the predicament that the Democratic establishment has put us all in. There’s potential for actual change here, even if it requires going through some chaos and pain.

      The pressure of the non-vote threat is actually being felt by party leadership and they appear to be delicately trying to create an environment that will allow Biden to accept that he needs to step down. It would actually be huge for the party’s health if they pulled it off.

    • @ZK686@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      So, you don’t think Obama and Clinton deserve some kind of immunity? Do you REALLY think they’re both completely innocent? Do you REALLY think their hands are clean?

    • @trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      We’re supposed to be evolving into a more free society… this is just going backwards.

      You have discovered the great fallacy, the presumption that democracy and freedom are the natural course of things: they are not. Every single inch of it we have was taken by force from kings and dictators, and they’re always waiting in the shadows for their opportunity to take it back.

      The peace dividend created by the end of the cold war has unfortunately made an entire generation of people who believe this fallacy, this is one of the glaring reminders that it’s not true. Democracy and freedom are things that must be actively maintained in perpetuity by everyone who wants them, we must be ready and willing to use all four boxes of democracy (soap, ballot, jury, AND ammo) to defend it for the rest of our lives. We must educate, we must vote, we must nullify unjust laws, and we must arm ourselves, because at the end of the day, violence is the one enforcement method that everyone is forced to listen to. It doesn’t matter how right you are if the other side has more people willing to kill and die for their cause than yours does, so we better damn well make sure that’s not the case.