• UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    326
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      98
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

      1. Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.

      2. Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

      They’re already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Option 2 is suicide. I guess that’s it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They’ll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don’t stand up to fascists.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.

            George Lucas

            • oo1@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 days ago

              Didn’t Caesar literally march his army into Rome? ‘crossing the rubicon’ - and then there was a thing called the roman civil war

              • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                Yeah. There was also the title, literally “dictator”, that was bestowed on individuals in times of crisis (or perceived crisis), and in some cases the power of the dictator was returned to the republic when the crisis was addressed (see Cincinnatus). Rome had an established process for giving power to the dictator.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.

            • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                3 days ago

                Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don’t serve to shoot their own country. Countries don’t want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won’t support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.

                • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  Did you see the police step on people during the blm 2020 marches? They have no problem being fascists

                  • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    Most of those where cops only larping as military. Military operations are a completely different thing. No country wants to fight their own people. Your own logistics, intelligence, supply chains, and financing all rely, in part, on the very people you are fighting… You can’t trust or count on the chain of command at any point, at any point your keys to power can turn on you and you’re dead. Leaders with half a brain know you usually don’t have a long life attacking your own people.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            It wasn’t a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.

                • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  What does Iraq and Afghanistan have to do with America and taking arms up against our government? You really think a bunch of hillbillies with guns are going to do shit against our military?

                  • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I’m pretty sure the Taliban could also be described as a “hillbillies with guns” when they started out. And you know what, they won.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        118
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.

        Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.

      • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        There’s some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can’t handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.

        However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn’t matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.

        And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today’s ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.

        Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.

        The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        But he can commit official acts that happen to be criminal. Semantics are fun!

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        Supreme court literally just said he could by saying Jan 6 was fine for President to incite

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        If they are traitors and terrorists, he may have to send them to Guantanamo.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.

        Official act or not?

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 days ago

              In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        62
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Trumps own legal team has described political assassinations as qualifying as an official act as president

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            52
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            It is! in the dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor explicitly describes this ruling as granting immunity for political assassinations

          • potpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            “Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.

            • Akuden@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              22
              ·
              3 days ago

              “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”

              I don’t understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.

              The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:

              Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

              Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.

              Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.

              Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.

              • potpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                22
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Nothing you wrote ensures anything.

                Trump was impeached twice with no consequence.

                “Official acts” is arbitrary.

                  • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    The problem here is that Trump stole and likely sold classified documents. This ruling now allows him to sell secrets that can cause grave danger to the country without consequence.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.

        What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

          • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.

            This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That’s the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.

            So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even mind since they’re the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it’s a small price to pay for democracy.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        39
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.

          Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren’t supported by the Constitution!

          Whoopsie.