• nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    253
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is literally explicitly legalized fascism and its the law of the land right now. Even if Biden wins he needs to do something to stop this before he leaves office or the US will forever be exactly as fascist as the President decides he wants to be. It’s here now.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      There’s not much he can do short of committing a crime himself. Democrats don’t have control of the House, so there no way to increase the size of SCOTUS. They were smart in ruling bribery is legal before granting immunity, or Biden would have been able to officially order the DOJ to investigate SCOTUS for corruption.

      His hands are tied unless he wants to get blood on them.

      • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        79
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        His hands are VERY TIED unless of course he decides whatever he does is Official Presidential Actions!

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          If being in contact with the DOJ and VP is “official duties” and thus immune to prosecution regardless of the content of the contact, then being in contact with the CIA and asking them to “retire” some justices should be as well under more or less exactly the same line of reasoning.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • cybervseas@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            ·
            5 months ago

            How about house arrest for their “protection”? Developing countries do that all the time.

          • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • Killing_Spark@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                5 months ago

                It’s not like trump is known to not stoop below any bar he sees. Holding the bar up won’t do anything

              • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

          • APassenger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            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

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

              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.

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

                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.

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

                  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.

                  • APassenger@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    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.

          • Veneroso@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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!

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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.

      • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Blood on his hands from BLM protesters, Palestinians, trans people, Ukrainians who could use the support more than Israel, most Americans who don’t have enough to live with life threatening illnesses, Mexicans at the border, ignoring COVID…

        Fuck the Court. It doesn’t care about America. The penalty for teason is…?

        If you or I did anything close to what Trump and the Courts did and do on a daily basis we’d be arrested in a high security prison. Jan 6th had next to no punishment for any of the leaders.

      • Wiz@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It’s literally not a crime if the president does it.

        There’s lots he can do besides killing people if you are creative.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        He can pack the supreme court. Then limit it to something tangible.

        Like first, say that 2 senators per state is silly and it needs to be based on population like the house if reps. Then say that we need a supreme court justice from all 50 states + D.C. or some shit.

        Boom.

        Then term limits, age limits… Ranked choice, strict laws in gerrymandering…

        And we have a functioning Republic again.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          None of that is in within the power of POTUS.

          The structure of Congress is determined by The Constitution and its Amendments.

          Congress needs to pass enlarging the Supreme Court with a vote, and Republicans have House majority.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              There are so many misinformed people on this ruling. It doesn’t give the President more executive authority, like a king. It lets him commit crime without personal responsibility if it’s an official act.

              Yes, it’s insane and deplorable, but it doesn’t mean Biden can do anything he wants.

              If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 months ago

                If it did, he could just outlaw felons from becoming President. SCOTUS doesn’t want that.

                “I have ordered the military to detain Donald Trump in a Federal max security prison and destroy all ballots marked with his name on election day. This is not a change in the laws of our great nation, this is just an act that I am ordering to be performed in my official capacity as POTUS. God bless America.”

                • azuth@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  And while he won’t face any charges himself the military will refuse to execute what is an obviously unlawful order.

              • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                Well, presidents can also leverage other actors to help them out. Quid pro quo, you might say.

                Unfortunately that really only tends to work in the favor of bad actors. There is no legitimate reason to have immunity for “good.”

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

                It really doesn’t change much. Instead of just ignoring what presidents do that might be criminal, it’s explicitly immune.

                Also this ruling doesn’t grant further immunity to others. The president can order seal team 6 to kill someone, but they’d still face charges if it wasn’t plausibly a legitimate target.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Good point, and well made. The immunity is explicitly for POTUS. If those carrying out the act are aware they are committing a crime they could be charged accordingly.

                  It unfortunately may change a lot for Trump, depending on what judges rule to be “official acts” of his Presidency. Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

                  • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Except the President has pardon power.

                    Soooo, henchmen also have absolute immunity if the president is fully aware that what he has ordered is illegal.

                  • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Cannon may use this to throw out the documents case.

                    How? The documents case is about stuff he did after he left office. Things he does after he is no longer President definitionally cannot be official acts of his Presidency.

                  • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Biden could also grant immunity to others in carrying out his potential illegal actions, like trump did. If you want to fanfiction this scenario

      • LordGimp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s the funny thing. He cant commit crimes anymore. He’s immune from the law. All he needs to do is order the military to destroy the corruption in the Supreme Court using the legal doctrine known as bullets in the brainpan. Poof, problem solved. You don’t even have to kill people, just a few fascists.

        • Freefall@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          To be fair. He just has to kill off the maga leadership. MAGAs are weak-minded followers, they will throw their impotent tantrums, then get distracted. The non-magas in the regressive party (gop) will cower then do their usual thing, hell most of them will instantly turn on maga when it has no teeth anymore. When he stops there, and normal Regressives don’t get persecuted or attacked, and the US starts getting better, they will all carry on…and McConnel, who will still somehow be alive, will say it was all his idea.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Frankly? He needs to get on with that malicious compliance to graphically - and yes, in some cases violently - demonstrate why this is a terrible fucking idea. I’m genuinely not looking forward to it, but at the same time I do think it’s become absolutely necessary.

        But I sincerely doubt he will.

      • rayyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        His hands are tied unless voters give him a mandate by voting all MAGAs out of office.

      • rozodru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        in all honesty, that’s what you Americans need to do. the days of peaceful protests and marching are behind you, you missed that boat a while ago. now a ship named “Revolution” has just pulled into dock and if you’re not on that boat then there’s no more boats coming.

        Stop using the excuse of “but I need to work, I have to pay rent, I have to pay bills” because in 4 months time you might not have a job to pay those bills or rent. hell depending on if you’re a woman, LGBTQ+, liberal, black, an immigrant, etc, etc, etc you might have none of the above.

        The American people and the country as a whole are literally, currently, right now in real time dying by a thousand cuts. you’re being slowly and methodically murdered with precision and too many of you don’t realize you’re dying. Time to demand heads on pikes and if they aren’t handed to you, well you need to go out and get them.

        One way or another people are going to die. I mean I’m not going to sugar coat this, people will die.

        So the question is would you rather die laying on your back doing nothing or would you rather die saving whats left of your nation and fighting for your fellow American?

        • samus12345@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Easier said than done. How could this bloody revolution ever come out in the people’s favor when the US government controls the most powerful military in the world? I want to know how everyone spouting off about taking power back by force realistically thinks it will play out.