Supreme Court impeachment plan released by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Fuck everything that's happening. I have nowhere else to fucking yell. I am so frustrated with the absolute stupidity and proud-ignorance in this world. Fuck!!!!!

Hang on to that aggression. Might need it later.
- Like when you're standing amongst some peers in front of a firing squad filled with fascist bootlickers.
  
  (/s... Shit's weird)

This is what Democrats need. For the younger generations to be the adults in the room. It's been time for it a over a decade ago. They should have been preparing lines of succession during the Obama era.

It's pointless posturing. Thanks to people not turning out to vote in 2022, the Republicans control the House. They're not going to support this.
- Kinda tired of this take. Corporations and the billionaires who control them have captured our democracy and they're not going to support this either. But sure, darn those hypothetical and inevitably too-leftist non-voters!
- https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/
  
  That's not what the data says. Interestingly, Republicans didn't vote more frequently than Dems.

There will be no 2028 election.

Plenty of dictators still have elections. Well, they call them elections at least.

So I guess it will at least be called an election.
- This is the correct answer. GOP is already trying to capture enough secretary of state positions to ensure they always get 270 electoral votes.
- Press freedom will be the first to go in that case.

Would it be legal for Biden to assassinate them? Asking for a friend.

Don't ask for permission, ask for forgiveness.

And if you're the president, forgive yourself.
Only if he orders the CIA to do it, it's a personal act if he does it himself
- He could declare the new Department of No Malarkey, appointment himself Chief DeMalarkier, and then declare a Malarkey Ceasing Spree.
Yes
- No, because if he did, he would appoint new justices that would strike down the "presidents are kings" ruling.
Only in so much as the Supreme Court decides that it is "legal".

So the details are that the Supreme Court left it open to interpretation as to what could be considered an "Official Act". If the Supreme Court decides your murder spree is an "Official Act" you are good to go.

So if the Supreme Court Justices are conservative when Biden goes to trial, then yes, he can be found guilty.
- Assassination is a good thought experiment because of this. It is literally up to "someone" to decide if X act was official.
  
  And that someone will more than likely be the Supreme Court for a lot of things.
  
  As much as I hate the political drama, Biden really needs to do something completely ridiculous to show everyone that this ruling isn't sustainable.
  
  He won't though. And this shit will drag on and spiral with no checks.
- I bet if you killed everyone on the court and in the legislature and replaced them with your personal sycophants, they would probably agree it was an 'official act'
Literally anything except getting rid of First Past The Post voting. Meat is back on the menu boys!
Would it be legal for Biden to assassinate them? Asking for a friend.

I realize you're likely being rhetorical, but in case you or any other users are actually curious, the fact of the matter is that criminal acts, including assassination, are not protected by presidential immunity. Here's a breakdown:

Official Acts are things the President does as part of their job, like signing laws, directing the military, and managing foreign policy.

Criminal Acts are illegal activities, and they are not protected by presidential immunity. Assassination is definitely illegal and falls under this category.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process of law, meaning that the government cannot deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property" without fair legal procedures and protections. Additionally, Executive Order 12333, explicitly prohibit the U.S. government from engaging in assassination.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982): The case granted the President immunity from civil damages for official acts, but clarified that this doesn't apply to everything a President does. Unofficial acts, like crimes, are not protected.

In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court ruled that President Truman's seizure of steel mills was unconstitutional. Even though it was for "official use" and it was for "the good of the country" it was nevertheless deemed not part of his presidential powers and therefore not covered.

Presidential immunity protects certain official actions, but it doesn't cover illegal activities. Assassination would be an unofficial act and is definitely prosecutable.

I doubt Republicans will support this. Really it comes down to if Biden is going to use his newly gained "official" immunity and look like a dictator, or if Trump gets elected who will most definitely use a cover of immunity to target his political foes. Maybe this is Democrats attempt at we tried to be civil, but you gave us no other choice.

However, this doesn't go far enough quick enough to revoke the latest decision by the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court has done is actually told the Jan. 6 rioters that under a Trump presidency that a dictatorship is permitted. It doesn't matter if they are impeached, replaced or the decision is reversed. Trump will do as he pleases and point to this moment and say "look, they said it was fine and Democrats didn't respect the rule of law."

I can appreciate your frustration and I share that sentiment, but the Supreme Court changed nothing with the "immunity" decision. No one that follows legal procedure was surprised by this, and anyone claiming to be is either ignorant or is intentionally conflating the significance. Presidential immunity has been a thing for a long time and SCOTUS has changed nothing.
- Oh really? Do you mind going ahead and sharing your law license? I'd like to ensure the person trying to give me advice right now is also an attorney.
- Except that isn't the case at all. From the very ruling
  
  "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32"
  
  Literally saying that the president is free to organize coups, organize any crime so long as it's with his advisors or testimony it is 100% immune from evidence. Unironically this is one of the most facist shit I have ever read in the USA.
  
  "The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,"
  
  The Supreme Court specifically even said that Trump directing Pence to refuse to certify the election was perfectly legal and 100% immune. That is an insane position. Absolutely no legal expert worth their salt would claim this was the expected result. That just means they are shitty legal "experts." AND EVEN if a lower court decides it wasn't official buisness of the president, as the ruling said that testimony or private records of the president or his advisers examining such conduct cannot be admitted as evidence at trial. So even if the act is found to be unofficial by some miracle by the lower courts, there would be no evidence admissible.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

While Trump celebrated the ruling, many legal and political analysts sounded the alarm about its implications, with some arguing it places presidents above the law.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, wrote early Monday afternoon that she would introduce articles of impeachment against the court in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Congress has the authority to impeach and convict Supreme Court justices, a key check on the judiciary's power.

Only one justice has ever been impeached—Justice Samuel Chase in 1804 after Congress accused him of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding defense witnesses in two politically sensitive cases.

Even if Democrats were to support impeachment, it would likely face hurdles due to Republicans' narrow control of the House of Representatives.

"Today's Supreme Court decision to grant legal immunity to a former President for crimes using his official power sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation," wrote House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The original article contains 457 words, the summary contains 157 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Even if Democrats were to support impeachment, it would likely face hurdles due to Republicans’ narrow control of the House of Representatives.

What I don't understand is why wouldn't every single democrat support this? What better case for impeachment is there than a court that flagrantly ignores the constitution and tries to turn the president into a king? It's beyond the pale.
- Because there are some Democrats that have held on to their seats for many many years and are too fucking scared to do anything "out of the norm" because they may lose their seat. There are also some Republicans that will state they don't like the ruling but are also too afraid of the loss of their seat to actually do anything for the country the swore to protect.
  
  Ultimately it comes down to the fact that there are not enough brave representatives in Congress and the Senate to take on this problem. They all talk a big talk but if their actions reduce the chances of their reelection then they are out.

Mmm... empty performative gesturing from AOC.

Great, what are AOC's plans afterwards? Is she planning to resign for voting to prevent the rail unions from striking yet?

Bout time.