874
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
874 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3036 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The ruling just absolves him from criminal activity. It doesn’t give him complete power to increase the size of SCOTUS or retire Justices. He’d have to order a hit on a Justice to leverage that ruling, and that is an act of an insane person.
How about house arrest for their "protection"? Developing countries do that all the time.
They can vote from home.
Can they, though? I’m sure there’s some 200 year old policy about having all ballots cast into the straw hat behind the vending machine on a Thursday afternoon between 3 and 5, in order to count.
They did it during covid.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/courtroom-access-faced-with-a-pandemic-the-supreme-court-pivots/
Oh, neat. 😢
Not if you cut the power.
Solitary, for their protection.
Is that an act of an insane person? It's apparently legal, now. Do you broadly think that using violence against tyranny is insane? Our founders committed their lives and fortunes to the violent overthrow of tyranny. It would be much easier, sitting in the oval office, with legal authority granted to him by the very people he would be targeting, to authorize the extrajudicial execution of a few traitors. Do you think that extrajudicial execution is insane? Then you'll have to admit that most presidents in the last few decades were insane, especially Obama. Is it only insane when the target is white people in power, rather than brown-skinned people overseas?
I'm not commenting, at this time, on whether it would be moral, or wise, but insane? I can't see how.
I think it would set a very low bar for all subsequent Presidents if Biden used the new power to assassinate members of SCOTUS or Congress. The repercussions would be horrific.
It's not like trump is known to not stoop below any bar he sees. Holding the bar up won't do anything
There will likely be more presidents than just Trump. Even if he manages to become dictator, he’s old and far from fit.
The point being trump would set the bar very low anyways
I'm sorry, I was told if Trump wins this one it's the end of democracy. What other presidents?
They’ll still be “presidents.” Putin is an “elected president.”
The bar doesn't exist anymore, that's what this ruling is all about.
I get what you're saying, here. That's why I specifically disclaimed making any judgement about whether it would be moral, or wise. But consider the other side of that same coin: the court did this specifically to overthrow democracy and allow Trump, or any other president who will carry out Project-2025 to use this power to maintain an effective dictatorship. There's no other explanation for this ruling. Would using this absurd power once, now, to restore a court that is loyal to the Constitution and People of America, be worse than letting Trump get in, assassinate any and all opposition, and end democracy? Could we trust it to end there? Would Biden install justices that would immediately reverse the ruling and bring things back to normal, or just install his own loyalists? I dunno, it's complicated.
Ultimately, it's also all just theoretical, anyhow. I find it almost inconceivable that Biden would do this.
If there were 5 justices, they'd still be functional. As proven in the past, there's no requirement for 9.
Esit: I'd - > If
It changed size six times before settling on nine Justices in 1869. Each time it was determined by a congressional vote. It’s not up to POTUS, it’s up to Congress.
It ran at 8 for quite a while. No one's legitimately saying those decisions don't count.
The official number can be whatever. Congress doesn't get to nominate. And SCOTUS would keep deciding.
Do you understand that Congress needs to vote on the number of Justices?
I’m not talking about the vote on the nominee, but the actual number of Justices.
It is currently nine, and will remain nine, until Congress votes on a different number.
I'm not the one being slow. SCOTUS had 8 people while McConnell held up Garland.
Officially SCOTUS was and is nine people. But if the wheels of government turn slow enough, SCOTUS continues to do its job with whoever has made it through the process.
Officially 9, it functioned with 8. No one is credibly saying all those decisions must be thrown out or that SCOTUS cannot function during a shortage.
If that shortage was 4, people would be vocal. But legally, it would still be functional.
I not talking about changing the official number. I never did in this thread until you did.
You started this conversation by suggesting Biden “packs the Supreme Court.”
There are no vacancies. That means congressional vote to increase the number of Justices.
No.
I didn't.
That was the start of this thread. I’m sorry I didn’t notice you were a different commenter.
No worries. Have absolutely done the same in the past.
And I'll take the moment to salute your reliance on fact and citation. Wish more people did the same.
Cheers
With the excessive misinformation out there, we need to work together to get to the truth. Thank you for being so understanding about my mistake.
Have a good night.
So let's say, hypothetically.
The president thought that people shouldn't eat chocolate ice cream. It's anti-american.
And "for the good of the country" anyone who eats chocolate ice cream has to be isolated from the rest of society.
That's not an official act. It's not really on the periphery of official acts.
But because definitionally, anything that, at the president's sole discretion, is "in the best interest of the United States" is now argued as an official act.
Biden likes vanilla ice cream.
But he isn't going to detain you for unamerican activities if you prefer chocolate ice cream.
Choose freedom! Choose chocolate ice cream!
You don’t understand the ruling.
It is not giving POTUS any additional authority. It grants POTUS immunity from criminal prosecution of a crime related to an official act.
Biden could personally slap the ice cream cone out of your hand and get away with it, if a court ruled it to be an official act. No one else is immune from crime committed on his behalf.
This was tailored to Trump’s insurrection charges. If SCOTUS granted POTUS more executive privilege, Biden would just overrule SCOTUS and exempt felons from presidential candidacy.
You're so close to getting it.
I hope that you can connect the dots.
Dip-n-dots.
Seems like you're pretty far from getting it.
This person clearly prefers pistachio ice cream.
I agree, they should be shunned!