We're so fucked
We're so fucked
No one even thought to ask about it in the debate.
ITT: people resistant to the idea that what the judicial branch is doing is seriously wrong.
Jesus fucking Christ. That was only two months ago? Fuck you, Time, can you just be consistent for like even a second?
I mean, have you followed what's been happening in the last two months?
I've aged 28 years.
Right, but this is how we slip into authoritarianism. Lose on all fronts over and over and even if we walk away from a battle they've gained ground.
Because nobody’s taken advantage of it. It was written for trump. This meme will age like roadkill.
Oh, good. I'm sure that we'll never have another corrupt president, so there's absolutely no need to worry!
I have no idea what that even means. The entire point is that it's written for a corrupt president, one will take advantage of it, and we're supposed to worry.
Kamala did bring it up in the debate. And that was about it.
So Biden could assassinate Trump and the courts just shrug?
The ruling is vague enough that any specific cases can be decided based on the court's political preferences.
The entire point is that Biden won't, though. It's just more of the rules for thee, not for me shit that fascists love.
No, he can't. It would turn out that isn't an official act, because reasons.
So, kinda. The ruling did have more nuance than a lot of people take from it, but it's still not a good ruling by any means.
The president has absolute personal immunity for core constitutional acts, and the presumption of immunity for official acts.
That means that you can't sue Biden for vetoing a bill, or other things defined in the constitution. That doesn't mean you can't sue the office of the president, but that you can't sue the individual.
The next part is that the courts need to assume that there's immunity for anything done "as the president" unless the prosecution can argue that not having immunity couldn't possibly infringe on a power of the president, and you can't use the presidents motivation to make that case.So the president talks to the justice department about what they can do to sway the election for him: you can only talk about the impact of holding the president liable for talking to the justice department about elections.
You can't talk about the president assassinating a political rival because that introduces their motive. "Would the office of the president be hindered by holding them personally liable for using the constitutional power to command the military to target a threat to the country".
Trumps family could sue, but Biden wouldn't be liable, only the executive branch.
Step one, remove the opposition justices on the Supreme Court and install your own. Step two, have them decide what you did was lawful.
I care. As far as I'm concerned, we've already entered fascism with that decision. We have no way of knowing that ONLY Donald Trump would abuse that power.
Chuck Schumer introduced the 'no kings act' which, if passed into law, would:
- Reaffirm that president's and vice president's do not have immunity for actions that violate U.S. criminal law
- Remove the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction for all actions challenging the constitutionality of this legislation (referring to the no kings act I believe)
- Establish additional jurisdiction and procedural guardrails. Allowing the United States to bring criminal action against a President or Vice President in any applicable district Court.
I think this is a good stop gap and I will be emailing my senators and representative to support this bill
I think everyone is waiting to see how the "official duties" part shakes out.
It doesn't matter. You act as though that will temper the ruling but really it is an escape hatch if a Democrat trys to use it. Kings aren't kings just because the people go along with it. Nobility build the infrastructure then fight over who gets the hot seat.
I agree that the ruling creates a major issue but the way you're talking makes it seem like you don't recognize that presidents have always (certainly in our lifetimes) been above the law. That was clearly not the intent of the founding fathers but it is also clear that the modern entity we call the US government never had any intention of handling things in a different way. I'm not sure exactly when we crossed that line but it was well before this Supreme Court ruling, that much is certain.
Oh no no we care. We are now absolutely scared to fucking death the Trump will make it back in.
Before his first election we thought how bad could he be.
Then he was pretty bad. And then the next time around we went, he could be this bad. But he lost and that was good.
And now here we are again only the saying how bad can he be as a whole new context.
That's the way it's been for a while now. There's so many crises that we just run to the new one every few days, forgetting about the old one and never actually resolving any of them. Considering how complaisant the burnout makes us, I'd imagine it's not entirely happenstance that things are so hectic.
It's like people trying to down play Jan 6th. I said it was coming. You said it was coming. We all said it was coming. "Oh, but that's not really a threat. A threat is when people are losing their lives to an authoritarian government." It's coming.
"Look at the economy! What we can surmise is that concentration camps are good for my pocket book!"
Harris specifically mentioned it in the debate. but you can't talk about it when you have two minutes to answer anything. also what is there for them to debate about? he would have deny it's what he wants, deny he would abuse it, and that's that.
The thing that really gives me anxiety is thta no one has been talking about reinstating Chevron deference...
As someone who works in the saftey field. It's nightmarish. A court telling a refinery they don't have to do maintenence? Like that would neveeerrr happen.
Can you explain like I'm five that?
He's announced he's suing the justice department for $100 million in punitive damages over the Mar-a-Lago raid. Punitive damages are explicitly impossible to sue the federal government over.
But if he's elected, he'll be able to tell the justice department to pay up as part of his official duties anyway.
"punitive" as in punishing? That sounds like the US treasury will be receiving 100.000.000 then, since an individual shouldn't be the recipient of any "you fucked up, now pay the fine" in any scenario.
Fines explicitly not being caused damages, solely fines.
No one cares because no one really doubted that the immunity for official acts was going to be a thing.
The sneaky part that is problematic was making official communication channels inadmissible even for non official acts. That part is what buried the jan 6th trial for Trump, because it relied on communications through official channels as evidence.
Why fucking doubt it??????? They are trying to install an authoritarian. It's obvious by now!
They want to ask about policy positions, which immunity is not.
Seems to me this is a common theme everywhere. Something big happens and incites a massive reaction, even offline and then it dies down as quickly as it sparked up. Politics are a show like everything else, serious issues like this one overshadowed by more trending events such as the debate.
In the end, no one does anything effective and even if they do, it isn't massive or lasting enough to pressure any politician for real and they get to do whatever they want.