“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    30
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If only Biden was in power right now. And he could abuse his kingly powers to remove the kingly powers and restore Democracy.

    But of course this is an amazing carrot to keep everyone voting for Genocide Joe. Just like how Obama refused to encode Roe v Wade to use it as a carrot in the elections.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    27
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What Biden needs to do, like right fucking now, is pack the courts. AOC trying with a token effort to get them impeached is cute, but will ultimately fail because Republicans won’t turn on their own. The Senate is tied (if you count Bernie as one of the dems) and Harris has the tiebreaker. The house is controlled by the Republicans, but only 7 individuals need to break from their party in order to get a simple majority to save the future of America.

    Biden could expand the SCOTUS from 9 seats to 13 and immediately submit 4 liberal justices for confirmation to be seated. Expanding the court doesn’t require congressional approval, so Biden could do this unilaterally and as long as he is able to get butts in those seats, they’re there to stay even if Trump squeaks his way back in. They could then challenge and overturn the immunity ruling, as well as all the other dogshit rulings that have come out in the last couple of years like Dobbs.

    He threatened to do it before. He needs to actually pull the trigger.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    81 year ago

    At this point, I think we just need to have civil war 2.0 and get it over with. It will be horrific, but unfortunately, they fucked up reconstruction after the first go around. I really don’t see another way out of this.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    Biden needs to exercise his expanded rights as President to save America by removing agents from all branches of the government who have been working to undermine America. Congress members, Supreme Court Justices, and Presidential candidates with ties to Russia or far-right nationalists should be removed by any means necessary. We’re essentially at war with Russia and we’ve been allowing foreign agents to work against us from inside our country. Take the gloves off and remove those people, they’re trash people who will do it first if/when they get into power next. They’re pretty clearly broadcasting their plans to turn the US into a dictatorship and the SCOTUS just handed them the power to do it the next time they win an election.

  • Laura
    link
    fedilink
    English
    121 year ago

    okay assasinate Trump, you’re legally allowed to do that now

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    He says that, but has no problem issuing pardons, which is about as king-like as it gets. It circumvents the legal and judicial structure of the entire nation, and he can do so on a whim. It’s true that, unlike Trump, he’s only pardoned people deserving of pardons, but that’s not really the fuckin’ point, is it?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Biden no longer has the moral high ground to pretend this would be illegal.

    Surpreme Court just literally said he can do whatever he wants. Everything he does is legal.

    So use those powers to actually want to “save Democracy” if you believe it’s truly in danger. Or would that make your carrot disappear of forcing people to vote for you?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1021 year ago

    Biden: The Supreme Court ruled I can do ANYTHING I WANT!

    Also Biden: So I will do NOTHING! Please Vote kthxbai!

    • ExFed
      link
      fedilink
      English
      561 year ago

      Yes, because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for, not just some adversarial power game. Claim the paradox of tolerance all you want, but fighting fire with fire here is just participating in the same race to the bottom that’s destroying our democracy here in the USA.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        Alternative take: letting Republicans do whatever they want and not fighting back or taking actions to prevent it, is what is destroying your democracy.

        • ExFed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Unless you’re willing to claim we’re in a civil war, then I’m not willing to call Republicans “the enemy” … That’s that the real enemies of America want of us: to divide and conquer from within.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        If he clearly cared, he would get rid of the fucking traitors that are in office, right now.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Only you plebs argue about the constitution while the people in charge treat it like a napkin.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        371 year ago

        Preemptive strikes exist. Law does not need to apply after the fact if the law is allowed preventive measures.

        And arguing about if one should take such a preventive strike, yes they should since the perp has already declared threatening intentions to cause immediate harm.

        • flicker
          link
          fedilink
          English
          221 year ago

          The people arguing against using this new power because using it now makes you just as bad as “them,” are the dog-sitting-in-a-room-on-fire meme.

          "Using the fire ax is just as evil as destroying the house yourself! Get fucked. We caught the Republicans smoking. Make them smoke the whole pack.

        • Natanael
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Biden has moved worker rights and more forwards, what’s your point?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            141 year ago

            Like when he broke up the rail union strike shortly before that horrible train crash in Ohio that unleashed toxic black clouds over the town?

            • Natanael
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You mean when the rail union got what they asked for, because all while Trump supported companies against unions,

              https://michiganadvance.com/2023/09/27/uaw-president-says-trump-visit-to-non-union-michigan-company-is-a-pathetic-irony/

              The rail union thanked the Biden administration for helping getting their demands through,

              https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid

              "We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.

              “We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”

              You’re forgetting that the goal of unions isn’t to strike, it’s to protect their member’s rights, and they got their rights. Strikes is one means of applying pressure, Biden applied pressure by other means

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for

        I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him. I seriously doubt any politician at this level gives two shits about anything but themselves and their power.

        • ExFed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him.

          That’s fair; my statement was pretty strong. But I think we can agree that by comparison Biden cares more about it than his opponent, a known insurrectionist.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        If he has practicality no limits what’s preventing him from getting the decision undone and making it so that the president could never have such power?

        If he has all the power in the world he should also have power to undo that power.

        • Natanael
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          He doesn’t have legislative power, that’s the difference. He controls the executive branch, so he can direct law enforcement and regulator agencies and more however he wants. But he can’t single-handedly restrict his own power in a way the next president can’t undo

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            So tell SCOTUS either they reverse it and add that they’ll never do it again or they get “executive ordered”. If they refuse you “executive order” them, after all that’s what they thought wouldn’t be illegal. Continue until you get a SCOTUS who won’t refuse. If the SCOTUS wants to throw their lives away for their own stupidity, let them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        FDR trying to pack the crap out of scotus with liberal judges so all his social reforms would actually go through instead of being struckdown.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Modern dems cant fathom having gumption. All they have is furrowed brows while the repubs destroy dismantle and overthrow.

          Dem brow furrowing will intensify until GOP is the one true ruler.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        121 year ago

        The constitution has been ripped to shreds, spit on, and set on fire. Any moral high ground is meaningless at this point.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1691 year ago

    So, Biden can order seal team 6 to permanently fix the Supreme Court by removing 6 and leaving 3 alive. Gotcha.

    After all, those 6 argued that he has the right to do so.

    • bluGill
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      It is up to congress to stop that not the courts. He should be impeached if he tries that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      Just tell Joe that there are six Palestinian children on the court and he’ll get right on it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      351 year ago

      Only if he claims it’s an official act though! Don’t forget that part! Write “official act as president” on everything!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t have to be an executive order, he’s in charge of the military. Any command he gives them is an official act, and can’t be questioned now.

          And then he can pardon them as they don’t have the same immunity as he now has. Pardons are also official acts.

          • Natanael
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            Only for federal crimes, but that covers most things involving the military anyway

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Also, I’m not sure being pardoned has an impact on if they can be discharged for following an order that a tribunal disagrees with. They might not end up in jail, but it could be the end of their military career

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      Biden fucking dumbass going blast no kings well I can promise you if Trump wins exactly how he will act. He will take Full of advantage of this ruling.

      Best thing Biden can do but he want is take advantage of it to in helping out the American people.

    • TunaCowboy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      851 year ago

      Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!

          When They Go Low, We Go Die

          Chapter 3

          Marjorie smiled with great satisfaction as she looked at the crowd and began to check the rifle in her arms to make sure there was a round in the chamber.

          2 men with giant beer guts - who each wore different flavors of Punisher-style skull masks and were covered head to toe in pointlessly elaborate tactical surplus gear as if they were cosplaying their favorite Call of Duty characters - began dragging another elderly man up to the makeshift platform.

          The white-haired old man was dressed in a finely tailored dark blue suit with a little American flag lapel pin next to his tie. It looked so similar to the one that so many others in his cohort had adorned for probably the last 20 or so years, but he had been blindfolded by the men before being brought before the stage so he couldn’t see how many others still wore it or who had switched to the golden lion that… “the others…” now wore exclusively.

          The octogenarian ghost of a man feebly began to speak (not shout) loudly in protest as if trying to reason with whomever might be in charge, but the 2 pig-like men grinned and said nothing. They began tying his hands behind him against a wooden pole covered with small holes, indentations and spatters of red. As the grinning pigs both stepped away from the geriatric man secured to the pole, the mob just below him roared with wild bloodlust over his inaudible words drowning them out over and over again with : “USA! USA! USA! USA!”

          Marjorie laughed and took one hand away from the rifle to quiet the crowd so they could hear the old man’s words :

          “Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Point of order! I’m reclaiming my time! I’d like the gentle-lady to put down the firearm she just picked up, Mr. Ch-”

          …he was cut off with a loud and sudden BANG as he slumped into a dark puddle of red slowly expanding across the stage floor.

          The crowd roared and resumed its repeated chant…

          …and another blindfolded well-dressed elderly figure was walked up to the pole.

          Quoting the entire comment you’re replying to is kinda redundant

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3361 year ago

    Then fucking do something about it Joe! The DNC has been little more than passive observers to the raise of fascism.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        341 year ago

        It doesn’t do what it should.

        The point of the party is supposed to be long-term strategy and putting the platform over any one person.

        When people talk about what the DNC should be doing, it’s not some “gotchya” to point out that they’re not doing their job and leadership needs replaced.

        It’s just proving their point

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          171 year ago

          So because the National Committee’s short and long term strategy is not what you’d be doing, you think they’re not doing anything.

          Do you do any local political organizing?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            221 year ago

            you think they’re not doing anything.

            What’s their long term plan?

            As far as I can tell, it’s only prevent progressives from taking control of the party.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              81 year ago

              For now, they’re planning on getting out voters for the general election, and recruiting volunteers along the way.

              Most planning falls to state and local parties - which you can easily get involved in.

              Why haven’t you?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                151 year ago

                So basically the only thing they care about is winning, not actually representing peoples values?

                Theyre more than just an election committee, thats what the DCCC is for.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                171 year ago

                For now,

                Bruh…

                Do you know what “long term planning” means?

                If you don’t think they have one, say it.

    • Nougat
      link
      fedilink
      931 year ago

      Since we’re talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.

      And to follow up on @[email protected]’s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.

      • The Quuuuuill
        link
        fedilink
        English
        181 year ago

        Still. The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation. Their messaging since 2015 has been embarrassing. They keep courting moderate conservatives that don’t exist and ignoring unrepresented potential voters who do. They talk about how they win elections when there’s good turn out without ever analyzing which candidates encourage high turnout. Americans want to feel represented in politics and we don’t. The Democrats need to do something that would weaken the democrat party but would weaken the Republican party more: they need to actively begin dismantling the two party system. We want election reform. We want the police to not be a hostile force against the general populace. We want the society we live in to benefit everyone and not just the kinds of people who can afford to finance an election campaign.

        The polling exists. We all know that neither party represents or enacts what the people want do. The Democrats refuse to look around and see what’s happening, preferring to rearrange the deck chairs as the ship sinks because that’s the only thing they know to do. And you know? I can’t really blame them. We the people have also been rearranging the deck chairs. We live in a country that only benefits the top but we all still show up to do our duties without looking at what’s going on in other countries where the people are standing up to their authoritarian oppressors.

        The worst part is the fascists know what they’re doing. They know to decay the structure by raising the temperature because we’ve become too complacent. We need to stand up to fascism in a way that we haven’t ever since McArthyism.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation.

          No it does not.

          • the post of tom joad
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ugh. Stop. Talking. You Fucking. Knob.

            Jesus Christ, someone might believe you so talk less. Please.

            Please.

            EDIT: PLEASE

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              Nah.

              You all will whine and whine and whine but will never do the most basic political organizing.

          • The Quuuuuill
            link
            fedilink
            English
            181 year ago

            Then what the fuck is a primary and how do they decide to back in a primary and what the fuck is a super delegate?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        261 year ago

        No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          141 year ago

          No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.

          Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”

          Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.

          There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.

          Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

            • Nougat
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?

              I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                They can’t take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.

                • Nougat
                  link
                  fedilink
                  41 year ago

                  That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.

        • ExFed
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          I deeply disagree with this take. If we actually care about the Constitution and upholding what it stands for, then we have to work to undo the damage caused by this race to the bottom, not participate in it.

            • flicker
              link
              fedilink
              English
              301 year ago

              You know what would be a fantastic way to spur forward legislation and law stopping the president from doing anything bonkers?

              Having the president do something bonkers that the evil assholes who are setting the field to make Trump a king, have no choice but to stop.

              • Boomer Humor Doomergod
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 year ago

                I like this idea. Republicans are desperate to prosecute the “Biden crime family” but can’t go after him because of this ruling. So Biden just has to do a bunch of illegal but non-violent stuff - like openly soliciting bribes - and Republicans would be forced to pass a law.

                For that law to be valid, it can’t be targeted at one person - called “bill of attainder” - it would apply to all presidents going forward regardless of who’s elected.

                Hoist them by their own petard.

        • Nougat
          link
          fedilink
          731 year ago

          By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

      • Natanael
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        This is an interpretation of the constitution, so what congress needs to do it to amend the constitution to explicitly state the president is not immune, and good luck getting that through

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          They can amend it or they can pass law citing a different part of the constitution or other judicial precedent, then if it gets challenged the Supreme Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of it’s latest legal justification.

          Hopefully after we replace six justices.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      Whatever point you are making that they are treated as kings, it doesn’t mean we should make it any easier for them lmao.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        I’m not saying that trump shouldn’t be held accountable and go to jail. I just don’t want to hear that for biden