this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
-52 points (6.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3386 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

Our Supreme Court just gave him a free ticket to do whatever the hell he wants, as long as it can be traced back to his official capacity.

Keep in mind though, this is in reference to him being eligible to be criminally charged or civilly sued. In other words, this just prevents him from getting personally punished for it. But it doesn't give him any new powers.

Health Care was a bugaboo for him because he needed to get Congress to go along, and those people still need to win their own elections.

This predates the SC case you are referring to but it's the perfect example. If he got reelected he couldn't just decree the end of the ACA/Obamacare. He couldn't be punished for not following the rules but he'd still need others to go along with it to make any effective change here.

Also remember - when his "muslim ban" was first put into place, judges were effective in blocking it. Only after he changed it to a more palatable form did the SC approve it and allow it to be enforced. (One of those changes? Allowing dual citizens and green card holders.)

But he would have all the things he needs to deport all the people he doesn’t like, without Congress: a pen to write Executive Orders, a Corps of Engineers to build camps, a complacent Judiciary, and a total lack of a conscience.

I think the part we disagree on here is the "complacent judiciary" bit. I wouldn't say that's not true - but allowing deportation of natural born citizens with no other citizenship would be a tough swallow even for the current SC.

(Normally, there'd be another headache here - if successfully stripped of citizenship, these folks would have no other, so they'd have no country to be deported to. But I think you addressed that in your response - presumably his plan would be that they'd just be kept in interment camps build by the Engineering Corps until some country takes pity and accepted them, or until they die.)