this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024

317 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19090 readers

2573 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

• 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

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

317

Sotomayor Offers a Preview of What Trump Could Do as President (www.thedailybeast.com)

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

50 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mkhopper@lemmy.world 92 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Trump, Trump, Trump. "All these things Trump could do..."

How about, Biden could have Trump assassinated as a political rival.
Done and done.

[–] audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Democrats won’t, they’re too busy “taking the high road”. And by “high road” I mean “bribe big enough to live comfortably in Thailand for the rest of their lives”

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

To paraphrase and increase the accuracy of a deeply wrongheaded (imo) political slogan:

When they go low, we go die.

[–] hypnoton@discuss.online 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden could assassinate every billionaire in the country overnight.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why not order the NSA to hack their bank accounts and just take the money?

Everyone is going straight to assassinations, but there’s a whole lot that this immunity could accomplish before killing is needed.

None of it will happen with a democratic president, because of norms that they apparently haven’t realized mean fuck all to the other side.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The president couldn't be charged for taking the billionaires' money but the money could still be returned. An assassination can't be undone.

[+] DannyMac@lemm.ee -18 points 4 months ago (4 children)

That would instantly start a civil war, and if you're keeping track, we don't have any/as many guns.

[–] Carrick1973@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Speak for yourself, and if you don't, you should really look into buying them. We're not heading towards a happy place in this country.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

Or know some gun nuts and where they keep em.

[–] caveman8000@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Who doesn't have guns?

[–] settxy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Around 66% of American Households don't have a gun.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's a personal problem. The people paying attention and most at risk have been arming themselves since 2015. LGBTQ, Black, and Hispanic gun ownership are the fastest rising ones. Trailing them is more white people, whos rate of gun ownership is also rising, just slower. Eveyones been buying more guns.

[+] Adalast@lemmy.world -11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I don't own guns. I own glass bottles. They are far more effective weapons when wielded correctly. A single glass bottle can do more damage than a thousand bullets.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is like Charlie with his sword talking to Mac with his gun

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No, it is not. It really is not. Because Charlie is smart enough to fill the glass bottle and use it while Mac sleeps.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You called Charlie smart, which worries me lol

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That is because I don't know to what you are referring. I was simply turning the statement around.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It's a joke about the character Charlie in IASIP.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't own glass bottles. I own garden gnomes. They are far more effective weapons when wielded correctly. A single garden gnome can do more damage than a thousand glass bottles.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is astonishing how few people know how to correctly deal damage with a glass bottle. It is not about the glass, it is about what it is filled with. Now I am smarter than to explicitly state anything in an open forum online that could constituted unprotected speech, not that that holds much water. Speaking of, the bottles are not filled with water.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yah, the garden gnomes aren't filled with water either.

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wow, so many down votes. Either people don't understand or they are against historically useful anarchic ordinance. Seriously people, if we have any hope of dealing with these problems we need to take some cues from some Ukrainian grandmothers circa 2 to 3 years ago regarding the proper and artful application of glass.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wait, I thought we were all kidding. Please tell me your not serious...

[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." ~ Burke, “Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents” (1770)

‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’ ~Franklin

I will not be the one to cast the first stone, but I will also not sit silently by as the safety of my family is threatened. I have studied our history, I have studied our present, and I will not let another Crystal Noct occur without absolute retribution. This citizen will take the second amendment and its intended purpose of allowing the people to protect themselves from despots, tyrants, and autocrats who attempt to sunder the fabric of this democracy. I will meet force with overwhelming retaliation, if possible, so much that they think twice before attempting again.

"Knocking him down was the first fight, I wanted to win all the others, so they'd leave me alone." ~ Ender, Ender's Game (2013)

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Cool. I love sci-fi books.

[–] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 4 months ago

*will

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 23 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Well, the E-mail lady did warn us...

[–] oakey66@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Are we really still talking about how Clinton being one of the least popular politicians to run for president took it upon herself to tank a must win election? Really? I need this talking point to find its place in a grave. This is stupid.

Everyone knew Trump was a trainwreck. Clinton was so unpopular that people stayed home. She snubbed key states against campaign advice. She sucks. And she lost democracy for the US. We didn't owe Clinton a vote. Clinton needed people to vote for her. She didn't do enough to earn the votes. I voted for her begrudgingly. But Democrats turned their knives on Bernie harder than they did against Trump. And it turned a lot of people off from voting. At least Biden did some semblance of appeasement for the left populist wing of the Democrats in the first election.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It was a pretty simple statement, I think. Certainly not worth the two paragraphs of dribble you delivered in response.

[+] cyd@lemmy.world -60 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

If she's so concerned, she should resign. Let Biden nominate her replacement.

By staying on, she's basically signalling she doesn't care about the court going 7-2 after she drops dead during Trump's second term. No lessons learned from the RBG fiasco. What's the point of writing these long eloquent dissents that never end up swaying anything?

[–] Catma@lemmy.world 40 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

As i recall either Manchin or Sinena already came out and said the would not approve a justice in an election year. Having her resign now will be a repeat of the Garland nomination

Edut: it was Manchin https://www.reuters.com/world/us/manchin-would-not-back-supreme-court-confirmation-right-before-2024-election-2022-02-15/

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 months ago

Unless it's one nominated by a Republican president, of course

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 4 months ago

Bro, Trump's just going to kill her.

[–] Tilgare@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

She should resign, as one of the few level headed justices on SCOTUS? What kind of logic is that? You know she's not a conservative justice, right? Like... I can't think of any other reason you'd think this is a good idea, and during an election year no less. I see way less trolling on Lemmy than I did on reddit, but I'd like to believe this is trolling and not the actual opinion of a legitimate American voter.

She should keep fighting the good fight while we hope for a couple of justices to die or be impeached soon so we can fix the balance of SCOTUS.

[–] cyd@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You haven't put any thought into the situation.

SC justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Both are currently held by the democrats, the latter narrowly. Both are likely to flip next year. Sotomayor is over 70, diabetic, and travels with a medic.

If she wanted to do the right thing for the causes she believes in, she should have resigned during the past one or two years. Biden would have been able to replace her with a younger, equally liberal justice. But she didn't and probably won't, so if she dies anytime in the next 4 years (or 8 years if the Rs win the presidential election after that) then the court goes 7-2 and will remain conservative-dominated for decades.

[–] Tilgare@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure anybody would make that call at her age. And to be clear, because you're trying to infer that she is older than she is by calling her "over 70", she's 7 days past her 70th birthday; I'm not sure anyone would regard that as over 70, just 70. So at what point in her mid 60s was she supposed to decide "uh oh, I'm going to die soon", exactly?

And there are so many uncertainties when a replacing a SCOTUS justice that come in to play, especially with one side who will do anything to install their totalitarian regime and the otherside is on their high horse getting their legs sliced to bits because they were too righteous to jump off for the battle - why kick that beehive before it's ACTUALLY necessary?

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

why kick that beehive before it's ACTUALLY necessary?

Because by the time it's actually necessary, you're fucked. Case in point, if Sotomayor had resigned last year, her replacement would have sailed through, and there could be a 40 year old solidly liberal justice in her place, penning equally liberal opinions and poised to continue doing so for decades.

But she didn't, so if she acts now, her replacement would get caught up in "senate can't nominate in election years for reasons" BS. Big political fight, but one that's winnable since Dems ultimately hold the Senate.

If she puts it off yet further, she would have to continue for the next 4, possibly 8+ years. And maybe by that time the democrats don't have both the presidency and senate anymore, so her replacement is a less liberal consensus candidate.

Failing to think strategically is an extremely bad idea when it comes to institutions like the Supreme Court.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I don't get why more justices didn't do this. They're basically rolling the dice and we end up right where we did with Trump replacing Ruth Bader.

[–] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What’s the point of writing any dissent?

[–] Tronn4@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

So they save face

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Conservatives would never confirm a new justice under Biden or any non-conservative president. There will never be bipartisan confirmations again in our lifetimes. The next justices will be forced through by whichever side has such power.