- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
Why doesn’t Biden just have Trump and the conservative SC judges shot for treason? It’d be an “official act” and therefore OK according to conservatives, after all. It’d make the world in general a better place, and also help stop the US sliding (further…) into fascism
I’m getting tired of hearing these “Why doesn’t Biden just be a despot to stop another despot?” knee-jerk takes. Even as a joke, it’s not helping. Once you stoop to the enemy’s level, is there a difference anymore? Think about the kind of precedent that sets. As a country, can you even come back from that? We’d be trading one very dark path for another.
We have a system of checks and balances that can be used, assuming we elect people who aren’t part of the problem.
People need to get the fuck out and vote. Every election, every office, school board seat, dogcatcher, etc. Got friends who don’t vote? Try to get at least one of them to. Yeah, gerrymandering exists but it doesn’t hold a candle to voter apathy when it comes to damage done.
Trump is openly saying he will do that. This won’t be fixed without amending the Constitution or SCOTUS receiving that decision.
Fascism depends on the erosion of norms. Stooping to their level does nothing but empower them in the long run. If anything, it accelerates the process.
Glad to know I’m getting downvoted because I don’t support becoming the very thing we’re supposedly fighting against.
“Don’t fight back, just lay back and take it!”
Like, why even comment? You know that’s not what I’m saying. I pointed out a simple truth that is observed when fascists rise to power, that should be considered when people are saying shit like "drone strike SCOTUS. And instead of engaging with someone who’s most likely your ally, you misrepresent what they say to try for a snarky comment. Do better.
Thank you.
I’m happy to find a rare voice of reason
What’s the point of high-roading if the destination is fascism? You going to hold your head high as you’re being dragged off to jail for not submitting your period tracker data to the state, telling yourself that at least you’re suffering nobly?
What’s the point of high-roading if the destination is fascism?
Because you’re just ushering in a different flavor of fascism? You may solve the immediate crisis, but make no mistake, you’re creating (or at least exacerbating) a brand new crisis.
Not all authoritarianism is fascism
And neither authoritarianism nor fascism are compatible with the principles our country was founded on. What’s you point?
The point is that if the destination is fascism, violence might be justified if no other avenue is available
Once we get there, sure, whatever, if that’s what it takes. But unless or, god forbid, until we reach that point, then there is no way you or anyone is going to convince me that abandoning our core values is the right way forward.
Under those standards, the American revolution was fascism and shouldn’t have happened.
Absolute false equivalence, and I’m done with this thread.
It’s only false equivalence because the American revolution worked out for the US, and was therefore retroactively justified.
No shame in setting limits for yourself.
Too late for this high road bullshit.
I stand by my original statement. Once you stoop to your enemy’s level, is there a difference anymore?
At some point you have to make a choice. Either grab a hose to help put out the fire and fix things or you stand on your high ground, praising yourself for how noble your intentions are as everything around you burns.
High roading only works if your opponent has a conscience and can understand guilt. The side that is playing with matches and gasoline this whole time has shown very much that they do not have one.
And to address your original point, yes there very much is a difference. One side is doing things for tye sake of hurt others or progressing a goal that is downright evil and tyrannical. Your doing it to protect the people they’re trying to hurt and to oppose their tyranny.
Will it be clean? No… but anything worth fighting for has never been clean. The world isn’t just black and white. And the idea that stooping to anothers level makes you the same as them is about as binary as you can get. The world is filled with nuance and a whole range of colors that needs to be observed
We have every right to defend ourselves with whatever means are necessary, but we do not strike first.
Christ. You don’t even realize we’ve already been struck over and over. All the while inviting more.
The only way we can get to a neutral position is tit for tat. We can try a generous tit for tat, but the degenerates won’t accept an olive branch.
Shit isn’t as it seems to you.
Yeah, there is. Many lives are at stake. It’s a trolley problem. Shit’s ugly and you can’t wish it away.
Once you completely ignore the paradox of tolerance, you are already on an inevitable path to a fascist dictatorship.
Unilaterally taking away your own options doesn’t help either. You can be damn sure Trump, and Republicans in general, will do whatever they think they can get away with. Remember when a year before the election was too early to nominate a supreme court Justice, but later it was totally cool to jam over through during the election.
I’m getting tired of hearing these “Why doesn’t Biden just be a despot to stop another despot?” knee-jerk takes. Even as a joke, it’s not helping. Once you stoop to the enemy’s level, is there a difference anymore? Think about the kind of precedent that sets. As a country, can you even come back from that? We’d be trading one very dark path for another.
We have a system of checks and balances that can be used, assuming we elect people who aren’t part of the problem.
People need to get the fuck out and vote. Every election, every office, school board seat, dogcatcher, etc. Got friends who don’t vote? Try to get at least one of them to. Yeah, gerrymandering exists but it doesn’t hold a candle to voter apathy when it comes to damage done.
SC justices can be impeached and removed, but there needs to be enough members of Congress who aren’t in on the plan to actually do it. Again, “get out and vote for people who aren’t part of the problem”
Here’s the problem: we’re watching the country errode in incredible time, the far right has sunk it’s claws into the government and it seemingly has no way to actually prevent it’s damage. All of the checks and balances seem to mean nothing as actual laws that people relied on are being repealed every month. And this might not be the worst of it, if Trump gets elected with a Senate majority, everything will probably flip seemingly overnight.
All we can do is vote and call representatives to tell them to support us. You could probably protest too but be careful out there. If you’re someone that might be targeted by an auth right regime, you might want to get your passport ready.
I’m tired of having to choose between “Uvalde shooter” and “Uvalde cops” in every election. Fucking do something or get out of the way.
My God, it’s beautiful
The court’s ruling prevents the president from being personally charged criminally for official acts during the presidency. The ruling doesn’t give the executive branch unlimited powers. The ruling doesn’t put the executive branch above the authority of the courts. The ruling doesn’t force federal employees to blindly follow any order given by the president. Courts and congress can stop the executive branch. The checks and balances still exist.
The president can’t be charged for any crimes they commit when on duty, just like cops and CEOs. They charge the organization with the crime to shield the individual who actually did the crime. This is american justice. Turns out many people are above the law.
The threat of eventual prosecution is not the only thing preventing widespread political assassinations.
The president can’t be charged for any crimes they commit when on duty, just like cops and CEOs.
You do know that is a problem, right?
Yes… That’s why I mentioned it.
So you’re saying that Biden personally needs to do it?
More realistically, in that it still won’t happen but it involves more paperwork and less people with guns so the it done easier to get done: use the executive powers to declare their homes national parks open to the general public.
Or order the Treasury department to put them on the list of people banks can’t do business with. One person in the Treasury making a 30 second form entry, and over the next few days it’ll trickle out and freeze their accounts, credit cards, mortgages, and everything. Sure, the random banker involved could override it but they, ironically, have personal criminal liability risk if they do so, and do they really want to risk a decade in prison rather than let the lawyers fight about it?
He was no longer president. How is this an official act?
-
He may try to argue he took them while he was president, and therefore, no charges can be filed. Actions and motives while the president can not be looked at either.
-
In the immunity ruling, “Just Us” CT added a note he thought Jack Smiths appointment was illegitimate. This means that if she tosses the entire case, it will inevitably get to the SCOTUS where there is at least 1 friendly judge that would let him off. Judging by the 6-3 ruling, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were actually 6 judges.
I am sure Jack Smith can argue all the other crimes of keeping, obstructing, and distributing the documents to those with out security clerence is still a crime but it’s if the question of his legitimacy if the reason. I think the SCTUS will agree with Cannon over the actual law for some BS reasons the founding fathers are believed to have said along time ago.
For what it’s worth, it’s really hard to read this post (which you seem to have put some actual effort into) because you’re writing it with odd abbreviations and slang. I know you’re trying to be edgy or something but when you have something worthwhile to say, it’s best to communicate it in a way that the majority of people who run across it can understand, rather than wrap it in what effectively amounts to lingo and jargon.
-
It would force them to drop evidence about his state of mind when he took the documents. They would essentially be unable to argue anything at all about how they ended up there. The case would then ONLY be about him not returning them later on request, with no other context available for the ruling
Don’t they have proof of him having them moved after the fact to try and hide he had them?
One of the core functions of the presidency is to sell secrets and advance foreign technology such that they may hurt our country economically in the future. Yeah, let’s absolve Trump of this too. And if we could also bring three or 4 virgins for him to rape comfortably during the preceding that would be great 👍.
That a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them could possibly be shielded by this ruling demonstrates just how insane it is.
a literal case of stealing state secrets and refusing to return them
I can’t imagine how anyone could make a serious argument that is an “official act”.
I know they’ll try, but it’s cartoon villain levels of ridiculous.
Here’s how it’s gonna work:
- Claim immunity in this case? “Well why? You weren’t the president”
- Claim that the 2020 election was “stolen” and that he rightfully was President when 1 occured
- Claim 1/6 was “official” too due to a stolen election
Because, sadly, some of those others are still in limbo, Canon will be more than happy to put things on hold “while preceding matters are sorted out”
It may not matter at all. Imagine it’s deemed unofficial and he wins the election, he will almost definitely pardon himself. Pardon powers were never given reasonable limits.
People have undervalued that the real check on a president’s powers is in the hands of the voters. The next strongest checks seem to be the lifespan of the executive and the two term limit.
The layers of protection provided in the Supreme Court ruling makes it very easy to justify either immunity or simply excluding all evidence of a non-official crime. It’s much broader than just “official vs. non-official”. The LegalEagle YouTube channel has a good run through of all the ways in which immunity or effective immunity could be achieved and it’s bad. “Top 5 worst Supreme Court rulings ever.”
Because the ruling quite literally says that anything the president does as the president is presumed to have immunity unless the prosecution can argue that applying criminal law couldn’t possibly impact on the core work of the office of the president, and that their motivation for doing what they do can’t be considered when making that determination.
“As the president” Trump asked the justice department to falsely claim it had discovered election fraud as part of a plot to steal the election.
The supreme Court ruled that this is protected because if you ignore his motivation, punishing the president for consulting with the justice department about election fraud would clearly impede the core functions of the office.Without considering motivation, would punishing the president for transporting documents he has legal access to to a place he’s allowed to take them impact impact the function of the office?
It’s a very bad ruling.
