this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
177 points (86.4% liked)

Asklemmy

43857 readers
1872 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 54 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Become one of Biden's close personal advisors and remind him of his obligation to protect the constitution from insurrectionists using official acts? Sorry I'm hella salty today.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Same here man, but it makes me think. Does Monica Lewinsky count as an official act?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

I mean, if she's good at her job...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

He can’t. His only power over SCOTUS is nominating Justices in the event of a vacancy.

Congress can, but Republicans control the House.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They won't control the House after a few official acts.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

"...Enemies foreign and domestic."

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, because he's a coward and an appeaser.

Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.

But you'd know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

So Biden can officially assassinate the entire Republican side and the supreme Court and because he was president when he ordered it, it is legal?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

That's the dissent's warning.

I guess the surviving members of the Court can reopen the question!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, exactly. "They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President."

That claim isn't even entirely untrue.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

But Biden himself came out and spoke about the ruling (paraphrasing) "we need presidents to use their power with caution and respect the (self imposed) limitations of it. I'll continue to do just that. The next guy might not do so and that's concerning."

Just a big ol' shrug from Biden... "I won't do it, but he sure as hell will."

Thanks Mr.Virtue... where is all that virtue when it comes to Palestinians?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?

I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

https://www.supremecourt.gov

Transcripts are posted after rulings.

Or you could just read one of the many, many, many articles quoting her dissent.

Or watch a video quoting her.

https://youtu.be/IOyItzldEBM?si=7qSrhX1P6npUdj0b

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not all of it, obviously. But if you want someone else to, you should consider not making them search through a different website to try to find it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It's on the landing page, in the third "recent rulings" that helpfully even has Trump in the name, but go on.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The standard for citations has been established a long time and there’s no good reason to change it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh that’s right you have no idea what I’m referring to. My bad.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I can understand how a person with no ability to articulate things wouldn’t grok or appreciate good citation design.

Ooh wait here we go:

LoL

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Said the guy "groking" things

🤣

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:

And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the "outer perimeter" of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are "not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority."

So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.

It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

Yup! It will be the 5th circuit almost certainly. It's the Republican rubber stamp circuit...

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

a man can but dream...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

He can’t. His only power over SCOTUS is nominating Justices in the event of a vacancy.

This is wrong. He can pack the courts RIGHT NOW. The Democratic party still holds the Senate. There is no requirement for there to only be nine justices.

Edit: This does require the house changing the number of justices. So the above is incorrect.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He cannot. The Republicans have House majority.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States&text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20stipulate,Justices%2C%20including%20one%20Chief%20Justice.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh, you are right about that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

With every House seat up for election, as well as 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to vote hard this fall for congressional majority if we want to put SCOTUS in check.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

If Biden did that the House might impeach him. I mean, the surviving members of the House probably wouldn't, but they theoretically could.