• ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    237
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Wouldn’t this mean a president has an obligation to kill his political opponents if they’re seen as a threat to the United States, and as an official act, it would be completely legal? Effectively making one man above the law.

    Even if it’s not seen as an official act, you can’t charge the president while they’re in the office, and with that power and a loyal justice department, you could eliminate anyone who might try to argue the legality of your actions.

    Good luck convincing anyone to bring a case against the guy who keeps making people disappear when they investigate him.

    This + project 2025 & a trump presidency is the end of US democracy. I don’t even wanna start thinking about the impacts globally…

    • Dragomus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      76
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Trump could now argue he, as sitting president, was threatened in his functioning by the new president elect, and it was an official act to block the transfer of power as long as the sitting president has concerns about the validity of the votes. (Ofcourse he always has those concerns)

      And now with the coming elections he will claim the same and as a bonus he officially and in the open has the republicans refuse to certify a losing vote because that also threatens his position and impedes his functioning.

      If the lower courts now claim his acts were not official he will just appeal that back to the Supreme Court, thereby still delaying any closure of the case well after the elections.

    • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Biden should just pass an official law that SCOTUS must be evenly split between major parties.

      This couldn’t be illegal to do anymore, as Biden will be immune, as it’ll be an official act.

        • farcaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          54
          ·
          6 months ago

          Are you saying it might be a crime for a President to unilaterally invent a new law and make the federal government enforce it? Well, you see…

          • Asafum@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            No just unconstitutional which is what the scotus exists to make judgments about. They just take it upon themselves to judge everything else too…

        • xenomor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          46
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          You are confusing the United States that existed until this decision with the United States that exists after this decision. As long as it’s an official act, the president can now do whatever it wants. If the supremes court objects, the president and threaten or assassinate the justices as long as it’s an official act. The President is now effectively a king. Read Sotomayor’s dissent in this decision. She explicitly states this.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s the thing, for the executive branch, passing laws is not an official act. It’s outside that branch of government. That’s what the Legislative branch does.

            It would be like Biden overturning a court ruling. That’s the Judicial branch, not your dance.

            • xenomor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I get it. This is how government functions according to the constitution. Please understand however, under this new interpretation there is no effective legal check on the executive doing anything at all. Yes, it’s not official for the president to do that, but there is no enforcement mechanism, and the president now has authority to coerce anyone or any institution. I know it is difficult to grasp the implications of that, but that is in fact what the Supreme Court did today.

              • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                6 months ago

                That’s the plan right, that’s part of Project 2025, to instantiate Unitary Executive Theory to make everything they do legal regardless of courts and impeachment trials.

            • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 months ago

              So in your opinion, did they just reaffirm something like the presumption of innocence but it’s tailored for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people? So he has “The presumption of immunity” when making otherwise illegal orders, until it’s otherwise determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                It protects any official action.

                So, for example, the notorious drone strikes that Obama ordered which killed a bunch of innocent people.

                As commander in chief, that’s an official act, he would have immunity.

                Bush and Abu Ghraib torture? Same.

                • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.

                  It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.

                  Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times

          • FatCrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I would rather he just pack the bench to 50 seats, one for each state, fast track nominations, and force congress to stay in session until a full court is appointed by putting hoteling them in the vicinity and only allowing them movement between hotels and congressional chambers. This would be in his power and immune as official acts after all.

      • forrgott@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s…not how it works. Like where your heart is, but this makes no sense.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    228
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Sotomayor’s written dissent explicitly says that this decision makes the US President a king that and can now act with impunity. This is effectively the end of the republic as described by the constitution.

    • FringeTheory999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      96
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Ok, so biden can officially order the assassination of the right wing supreme court justices and Trump, then appoint replacement judges and lobby congress for a constitutional amendment permanently stripping presidents of their absolute immunity. Since his orders would have occurred while he had immunity, he’d be in the clear, he’d have illustrated the flaw in the ruling, removed a dangerous individual, and prevented future abuses. Win.

          • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            There are some democratic politicians that might be interested into taking the offer up, but it isn’t public, nor they won’t reveal it. Can’t name any, but I can imagine at least 1 is out there. On the other side of aisle, we already know Republicans wants to enact the fourth reich and just about all of them wants to execute their political opponents.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          He won’t, but honor has nothing to do with it. He’s a democrat and therefore unwilling to wield power he’s been given.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        He could just dissolve the supreme court, it would be a little easier. I doubt the (current) military would actually carry out any sort of assassination. The military leadership are selected and it is instilled in them to pledge loyalty to the nation, not the president.

    • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Biden can be the first President since Washington to give back the power to We the People. He needs some official acts that return the power back to We the People. If they’re considered crimes by the right wing fascists, don’t worry. It would take too long to investigate, prosecute, and hold him accountable. His old age is also a super power!

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        6 months ago

        Biden definitely needs to make a move here, but I don’t see that working. There’s a difference between “the POTUS is immune from criminal liability”, and “the POTUS has the power to alter the government as they choose”, at least, there is for a President that isn’t going to enforce their changes with violence, which Biden hasn’t shown any sign of being.

        Perhaps there’s a way to swing this new legal freedom in a way that does something like that, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. I do at least know that, if this isn’t addressed A fucking SAP, then the US is in some serious trouble.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Everything’s possible through the magic of drone strikes. “Oh, I can’t do that, can I? Well, I’ll just call up the ol’ reaper team and see what they think. You’re going to miss the impeachment hearing, btw, and so will everyone else if they know what’s good for them”

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Again, I already addressed the violence approach. Does nobody read the full comment?

        • Zorg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          That all sounds very complicated, there is a much simpler way, in an official act of course, to deal with traitors:

          Title 18 §2381. Treason

          Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, …

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I already commented on Biden’s willingness to enact violence on his political rivals.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        What a power move that could be.

        “Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”

        • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          This is how the power could be used for good and to restore our democracy. King Joe needs to do this and then give up the power that Chief Justice Roberts and his corrupt cohorts gave him. He needs to move swiftly or even HYPER EXPEDITIOUSLY.

          Accountability for these biased, compromised, and corrupt Justices needs to happen now. Special Ops need to deploy and execute ASAP.

  • Apothenon1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    185
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.

    The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.

    No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.

    Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      And Europe’s next. Another far right puppet of Putin will be elected to run a European country in the next few weeks. Just shows that Europe follows the US in lockstep with a 5 year delay.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      The sad thing is that you’re completely correct.

      It’s over. This is the beginning of the true end. The end has been in sight for a while now, but it was always over the horizon.

      Now we can actually see it.

      There is not a way for us to legally come back from this.

      In retrospect, I guess that we should have seen it coming that the Supreme Court of lifelong, unelected officials would be our undoing.

      It’s pretty sad that we’re all taking this lying down with all of our Second Amendment talk.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    146
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE if he decides to Assassinate a Supreme Court Justice according to the Supreme Court Justices!

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      120
      ·
      6 months ago

      He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.

          • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Wild response

            The idea od suggesting following any prior tactics of Andrew Jackson is revolting, as cool as your response is

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              6 months ago

              Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn’t have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court “ultimate decider” powers wasn’t a problem.

          • TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way…

            This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They’ll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.

      Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king…

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      But he won’t, and neither will any Dem presidents, which is what the right wing SCOTUS is counting on.

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    136
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    So Biden should just shoot Trump… Let the courts decide if it’s an official act or not, delay delay, appeal to the supreme Court like all these decisions will be, and Biden may have shrugged of this mortal coil by the time all that happens

    • resetbypeer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      That’s no how this works. He is a democrat so by default unofficial. No matter if he orders a hit on Cheeto by Seal Team 6. /s

      Democrats = unofficial MAGA/republicans = official.

      This may become the 1933 of this century if november the wrong guy gets elected and fast forward to 1939.

          • sparkle@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            Cymraeg
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Sorry, I mean fake as in not where the justices live. I’m pretty sure someone just took random addresses from vaguely around where the justices live and put them on there, I think the residents are just random fellows

            Edit: Google searching has proven inconclusive in my quest for the truth, but there are articles claiming those are their addresses so I could be wrong. But people online keep saying the information is outdated by 1-2 decades and wrong (like this Redditor) so idk.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    What he did was not official. Now the lower court gets to decide what is official, and it’s being intentionally slowed down until AFTER the election so the current admin can’t go ballswild with the new allowances. Fuck these Maga-locing shitheads on the SC.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It’s technically treasonous.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.

              His public tweets would be admissible.

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    So americans, now you can show if you actually mean it when you say this is what you have the 2nd for.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m clairvoyant and I can see the future: They won’t. It’s always been all bark and no bite when it comes to armed revolution here in the states.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Well I suppose not always. We did have a revolutionary war and a civil war.

        But anybody alive today? Less bite than a newborn.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Also the Whiskey rebellion and Union/county wars, but nobody remembers them because they were relatively small. Also a lot of Rednecks especially Boomers and Gen X ended up being fucken bootlickers, sure there are some of us within Gen Z who are trying to revers the damage but well culture rarely moves fast.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Hey now, don’t besmirch the name Redneck with those sad sods. The Rednecks fought the good fight at the Battle of Blair Mountain, only to be put down by the US military backing robber barons.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Oh no I agree, I was moreso opining the damage done to Redneck culture as a whole. I may be of the Southern Californian variety and have little to no relations to those fine sons of bitches in the Appalachians but I have nothing but respect for mine distant kin. No I was simply stating that the bootlickers in who were taken advantage of through several points of cultural weakness did a shit tonne of damage. I have had the pleasure of talking to Rednecks of the Greatest generation and Silent generation, theyre no shits given savagery is something I wish I could muster but given the fact at least one of them car bombed one of his bosses and smuggled guns to the IRA I can say that I will never match up. But im still doing better than the Boomers.

    • FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      2A has been toothless for awhile. What good is stock modded AR15 supposed to do against tanks and fighters jets.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        To be fair, the fighting would be guerilla warfare which the us hasn’t been that great at dealing with.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s still good enough to shoot people who accidentally step on your lawn, or the teachers and co-students you had a disagreement with.

      • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        When a group of American freedom fighters go to take over a U.S.A. military base and hesitant soldiers aren’t sure if they should follow a traitorous president or their oath to the Constitution, the American freedom fighters being well-armed will make the difference.

      • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        We could probably mount a pretty decent resistance with what we have available. look what happened in iraq during the occupation. insurgency would be the way to go in a rebellion against the us govt.

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

        Exactly why I think americans who say the 2A needs to stay to overthrow a fascist government is full of shit. I would love to be proven wrong though

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        6 months ago

        And that’s why they didn’t bother with guns in Iraq. Defeating the Americans was hopeless; mission accomplished.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          This response is so weird I can’t quite tell what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Iraqis resisted with small arms fire? Because that’s not the case.

          More US citizens die each year in the US from guns than US soldiers died in the entirety of the Iraq war. And it’s not a small difference either - each year 4-5x as many citizens die from gun violence. Not including suicides (which would more than double the number)

          So was your post trying to say the small arms resistance in Iraq was effective?

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fucking insanity.

    Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn’t work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he’s breaking the fucking law. That’s kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can’t really have the legitimacy that’s being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.

    Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well…

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only sane thing to do, full on assassinate, or kidnap in secret and report youve assassinated, all the justices that ruled in favor of presidential immunity. Nominate a new set of justices, with confirmation under threat of further assassinations, bring the case back before the new supreme court to rule against presidential immunity

    • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Yes. Remove the conservative justices, institute new ones, undo all the bad SCOTUS decisions of the last 4 years, implement standards/ethics/accountability laws for the justices, put greater limits on their powers, and then remove the president’s “king” status. Also put Trump in jail for life. It is the only way to save this country. Today, democracy in the US is completely gone. It’s over.

        • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Personally, I don’t care if Trump and conservatives go to jail. It’s not like any of their politics is anything more than imaginary white grievance and 4th Reich. They aren’t a legitimate political party. They’re like one of the few illegitimate political party I can count on my hand and feet.

            • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              One of the parties have people like AOC, and Bernie Sanders. Those with you know, history of fighting for people. The other? Can’t name any one.

              • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                I think democrats, today, do try to govern. Their attempts often feel like they are just going through the motions. It must be hard trying to do your job when you see everything crumbling around you and you have a reality TV show host threatening to tear down everything you’re working on.

                If Biden, today, decided he wanted to extra judiciously “save democracy” the democrats would terminate any moral high ground they ever claimed to have. They would see revolt from outside and from within. Their only choice would to be bring everyone to their heel.

                We know there is no such thing as a benevolent king. If I had to choose between DNC or GOP dictatorship I’d prob go DNC. Except I’ve watched the DNC pretend their morals are superior. I watch it as they crush us all for the sake of decorum. To the DNC we are just a wall dressing while they enjoy all the privilege power affords them. Given absolute power, they abandon trying to do the right thing and dictate to us how capitalism is the only way.

        • atomicorange@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yes. The supreme court just made it legal for the president to destroy the country by doing all that. Do you see the problem?

            • fiercekitten@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent that basically says that anything can be an official act (with enough creativity i’m sure) and it’s not hyperbole.

            • ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              No one is going to believe your arguments over the dissenting judges.

              It is also very telling you’ve responded to no comments mentioning what the dissenting judges have said.

              • Akuden@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.

                • Victoria Antoinette @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone

                  obama thanks you for not remembering that time he assassinated a 16 year old american citizen.

                • ParetoOptimalDev@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded.

                  Based upon what?

                  The bar for internet rando invalidating legal expert is pretty high BTW.

  • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Didn’t our founders have something to say along the lines of when the government becomes tyrannical it’s a duty to overthrow it?

  • WolfdadCigarette@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Biden, I urge you to, once your cold has passed, begin officially eating treasonous Supreme Court justices. Who’s going to say it’s unconstitutional? Not the Supreme food Court.

    • JDCAce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Damn, if that’s not what they call the cafeteria in the Supreme Court Building, I’m going to be thoroughly disappointed.