874

“May have just legalized murder by one individual”: Experts alarmed at “stunning” SCOTUS ruling (www.salon.com)

submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

209 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] CrystalRainwater@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 4 months ago

Remember that this whole time biden could have packed the SCOTUS and turned the Republican majority into a Democrat majority. Nothing in our Constitution says only 9 supreme court appointees. He's just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn't want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.

If it was trump he would have (and did) wielded the knife of political power with no hesitation but the moment Democrats have the knife they hold it with fear the Republicans would accuse them of being partisan.

[-] exanime@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Didn't they and Manchin and Sinema promised to block it?

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 10 points 4 months ago

He’s just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn’t want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.

Liberals love to maintain the status quo with small, incremental changes.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He’s just not willing to do it because he is a liberal and doesn’t want to use his power to crush the Republicans like they need to be.

This is ABSOLUTELY wrong and /u/exanime pointed that out to you already. Manchin and Sinema said they would have blocked it. It would not have succeeded because they sold their souls NOT because biden is tOo LiBeRaL. Jesus christ.

The Biden admin has fought tooth and nail for things that are actually fucking possible and the average american has benefited. We all want to expand this illegitimate court but you simply CANNOT pin the blame on Biden's chest.

What about Obama?? Where was the packing of the court then? You know, that time in which he could have forced RBG out and chosen a pick but instead mitch pushed for the AmErIcAn PeOpLe to get the choice (and then did the exact opposite when it was trumps turn). Too much of a lib as well?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

[-] sxan@midwest.social 8 points 4 months ago

I'm honestly not sure why he doesn't just have all of SCOTUS murdered, and if anyone in Congress moves against him, have then eliminated as well. Do Trump in, whole he's at it. Full on blood bath.

Tell me why not?

[-] Mog_fanatic@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Couldn't they just vote that it wasn't an "official" presidential action and try him for murder? With this new ruling and the absurdly vague definitions of what is or isn't official it seems like absolutely anything is legal but only if the SCOTUS say it is. So right now it certainly seems like if you wear red you could do anything you want and if you wear blue you are screwed six ways to Sunday. I may be misunderstanding this whole thing tho.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 6 points 4 months ago

What a can of worms. If Texas can ignore SCOTUS then with this ruling what's to stop the president from ordering his staff to do the same?

[-] maegul@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

How well would a constitutional amendment fly? (I'm not a USian)

Could a states' rights pitch be made for enshrining some legal limitation on presidential action?

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Constitutional amendment(s) could fix things, but there needs to be enough people in Congress willing to pass it.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

US presidents acting in their official capacity were always immune to prosecution for murder. Johnson and Nixon wiped out entire villages in Vietnam, never held accountable.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024

874 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers

2920 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

• 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