What might the current president do with monarchical immunity to act? Sorry, that’s not admissible.

By Sidney Blumenthal (New Republic, July 4, 2024)

88 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
33 points
*

Thank you very much for copying this. I don’t know why but that website would redirect to a poorly laid out mobile ad every 20-30 seconds.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

I thought the site might be fine, but posted text anyway. May I recommend Firefox browser on mobile with uBlock Origin addon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Same. Using Firefox with unlock uBlock Origin and had no problems with the site at all.

Edit: Damned autocorrect

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

You know what would be a hoot? If Biden went on air and just read this aloud, word for word. Watch all the fascist-friendly corpo “news” wanks go apoplectic because outrage is more important than fact checking.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Copy/pasting the entire article is not allowed under lemmy.world guidelines. Links to archive.org are allowed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

… But why?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

Copyright law, Lemmy can’t defend against takedown notices, so the admins forbid copy/pasting entire articles.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Apologies. I now see it’s literally part of the first rule. (On the web, it’s literally “right there”. But more hidden on mobile, Sync app, under About section that I apparently never click.)

permalink
report
parent
reply
48 points

If Joe Biden were as ruthless about his immunity as Donald Trump is, the union might actually stand a chance.

permalink
report
reply
37 points
*

As it stands, he is refusing to consider any sort of action or regulation against the SC in any way, shape, or form. He is neither checking nor balancing a blatant power grab by the Judicial Branch (as currently co-opted by the Republican Party and Nationalist Christians).

I agree that the column presents a rather extreme scenario, but holy fuck, it’d be great if Biden was willing to go even a bit in the direction of malicious compliance instead of doing literally fucking nothing.

And more broadly: his outright refusal to take any action whatsoever in the face of clear, present, and existential danger to not only his campaign, but the Democratic Party, the Constitution, democracy in the US in general, and anyone who’s not a white evangelical, is an inexcusable abrogation of duty to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s dereliction of duty, plain and simple. That is why I now think Biden shouldn’t be the nominee any longer: he demonstrably does not have the proper temperament to respond effectively to a situation that has existed and gotten worse for the entirety of his first term. He’s done NOTHING to halt the judicial overreaches and legislatural ratfucking. I don’t expect that to change. After all, despite how much ink has been spilled about how his comments were “taken out of context”, he told us so himself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Isn’t it congress that holds the balance of power for the sc now. They are the ones with the power to remove justices.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

SCOTUS just gave the POTUS the power to remove judges as well

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Previously I jokingly mentioned offhand the possibility that he might have been poisoned, but thinking about it more deeply given everything that is going on right now… now I am not so sure that it is outside the realms of possibility. We might (!?) be watching a coup right now, which if it happens slowly enough seems to have greater chance to succeed?

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

I would instruct my intelligence apparatus to investigate and report all activities of SCOTUS members, and publish real time reports on the Web. Time Roberts got a taste of what he enabled for the rest of us.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

Honestly I want to see him just start seal team 6ing the fuckers until they walk back this obviously fucked ruling. I’m not usually one for the stupid games stupid prizes cliche, but God damn is this clown court playing stupid games

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

This seems like a fanfic, but the shocking part is that it is definitely possible : as long as 34 Senators agree with it. The only check on abuse of Presidential power now is impeachment. A President who gives this speech can act with impunity as long as 34 Senators agree to vote “no” on impeachment.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

Impeachment isn’t a check, it’s a gesture

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

When you eliminate all but those who would consent to it…

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

What kinda fucked up fanfic political porn is this shit? Yeah satire but what a waste of time.

permalink
report
reply
31 points

It does read like fanfic, but the scary part is all that shit would be legal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

Political satire that shines light on real political absurdity is rarely a waste of time

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

You’re not exactly wrong, haha. (Biden will never use his new powers to his advantage.) It’s an example of the absurdity of the court and their decisions, and the things we can look forward to from the fascist cult in the coming years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Sure it’s fanfic as of July 5th 2024, but if trump regains the presidency? Hoo boy there’s basically nothing preventing this fanfic from becoming a reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 315K

    Comments