this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
455 points (93.8% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4131 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
 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 221 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (10 children)

Biden once again bringing a deck of cards to a gunfight because responding effectively and proportionally in a situation that desperatetly calls for it wOuLd bE DiVisiVE.

THIS position is a justification for calling for him to step down from the candidacy, because refusing to even consider reforming - let alone packing (or, dare I say, the newly-revealed presidentially-legal-if-“official” extralegal and violent unpacking) the Supreme Court is very obviously going to lead to the long term failure of not only the Democratic Party, but democracy in this country in general.

[–] Coach@lemmy.world 103 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This. Right. Here.

It's fine if Biden doesn't want to play by the new rules – admirable in fact – but we have to understand that this is the game we're playing now. Either learn to play the game or take your ball and go home.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It’s fine if Biden doesn’t want to play by the new rules – admirable in fact

It's admirable, but not fine! Biden must play by the new rules; the Supreme Court gave him no choice.

"Taking the high road" doesn't just make him lose, it also dooms all the rest of us! It is unethical for him to be that selfish.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago

I wish I could disagree with you but I just can't anymore. I fear that we will look back on this as the breaking point.

[–] dogsnest@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

2D deck of cards vs anarchy checkers, and America loses.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 87 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's astonishing that a man of his age is still flexible enough to stick his head up his own ass. He still thinks he can work with conservatives, doesn't he?

[–] techt@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

Dems have to be in on it, that's the only thing that makes sense. It isn't Dem vs. Rep, it's rich vs. poor :(

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

When it comes to politics there is one golden rule that explains everything:

Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to malice.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I hate when people use the original version of that rule because it's never a good lense. The original should be 'Never attribute to stupidity what can be attributed to profit', or do people really think the world is run by idiots who just accidentally managed to profit off of every single time things got worse.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Wytch@lemmy.zip 79 points 4 months ago (15 children)

Conservatives, I understand. They're sick, and toxic, but they fight for what they believe in. Which is why we have to defeat them, and why we have to fight back so hard.

But Liberals, man, I just don't get it. Like zero goddamn fight in them. No political will. Not in my lifetime anyway. "Hey we're kinda less shitty than fascists, vote Democrat."

And I have to, but like, only to keep from sliding into the abyss in my own lifetime. So inspiring. Time to start over.

[–] hypnoton@discuss.online 25 points 4 months ago

Because libs self-limit. And that's because they believe themselves to be "good" people. "Good people don't do that." Thinking that you're good while your foe is evil or ungood is a type of hubris.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago (1 children)

WTF is wrong with Biden passing on so many easy gimme issues? JFC.

[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Just like the debate, so many missed opportunities to fucking end Trump. He his not of the right mind, America is in danger.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world 56 points 4 months ago (10 children)

Joe isn't going to DO SHIT and we are FUCKED and the alarm bells NEED TO BE RINGING ALL OVER THIS COUNTRY

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] absentbird@lemm.ee 55 points 4 months ago (18 children)

Wouldn't the correct move be to immediately prove why such a ruling is asinine? Use official powers to reform the court, new court removes dangerous ruling asap, guard rail repaired.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago

take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court

Nooooooo! Then the right-wing media would paint them as partisan! Instead of what they're doing now, which is ... painting them as partisan.

[–] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 39 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Reforming the Supreme Court was basically Pete's thing during the primaries. He was talking about it years before Roe, Chevron, and absolute immunity. He suggested adding 6 more judges, 5 of which would be rotating appointments by the other 10. It's a shame Biden won't do anything about this - especially when there are other leaders in the party who would.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 36 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's like climate change action. Too little, too late. Or really not much at all. Thanks, you fucking primary DNC voters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Let's be clear about what this is,

this is the executive branch refusing to put checks on a clearly corrupt and dysfunctional judicial branch. The stability of our 3 branch system depends on the branches being willing and able to check each other. If one branch yields to another, the system fails.

[–] mightyfoolish@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

I agree. This is within the president's role to fix.

Biden, you are head of the executive branch. Your job is to ensure the law is followed. Do your job and start making them do theirs. It doesn't have to be bloody but applying some pressure would be a great start.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 34 points 4 months ago

Here's the difference...when Trump gets in office, 3 of the Supreme Court justices are going to fall out the window.

Biden doesn't think it's a big deal.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If you dont try to fight fascism with every tool avaliable and legal to you, then you're a fascist. There's no if and or buts about it. Biden could take steps to counter fascism but instead he make committments to explicitly not fight it using the new SCOTUS ruling and even not to change the courts.

Even if he wins, in 4 years were going to be right back to fascism because he is explicitly refusing to fix this. Hes unfit to fight fascism which means hes unfit to be president in the modern US.

[–] xenomor@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

I promise you that trump and the Christo-fascist movement that he represents will be very creative and forceful wielding this power. For Biden and the Democratic leadership to asymmetrically disarm is yet another example of why the fascists keep advancing despite being unpopular on nearly every issue. The allegiance to decorum and gentlemanly procedure is killing us. Remember when Obama just let them steal a Supreme Court seat, without any fight at all? Hell, remember when Gore just cowardly backed down and ceded his win for the good of the country? I’ll say it again. Every bit of awfulness that Republican authoritarians are successfully persecuting is actively enabled by a pathologically cowardly, ineffective Democratic Party. Biden is exactly the wrong leader for this moment in history.

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 26 points 4 months ago

Because of course they did. God forbid a dem take any kind of unseemly action. Instead, we got a 5min press conference about how unacceptable it all is.

[–] DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats aren't going to "save you". They like having the Boogeyman of Trump or to get you to vote in "the most important election in our lifetime".

Don't get me wrong, Trump and the Republicans will do more damage socially, but the Democrats couldn't/didn't/won't stop that even when they control(ed) the White House, House of Representative, and the Senate.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Remember folks that this argument falls apart the instant you look at policies. Trump and his cronies will do more damage socially and in every other imaginable way. While not perfect, I feel the Democratic side can be fixed. There is no fixing the vicious and malicious mockery that is the modern Republican Party. For now, and if we fight, the Democrats do still listen when under pressure at least some of the time.

So let's start artificially creating that supply, by demanding.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The campaign is made up of closeted repuglicans. Explains a lot of their bullshit this season

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

Kicking the can like a dork

[–] IzzyScissor@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Right now, two things are true:

The president ordering the US military to kill US citizens on US soil is legal and cannot be challenged.

One of the presidential candidates is promising to be a dictator on day 1.

This isn't a drill. We're 4 months away from knowing if 6 months away is our democracy's end.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

They are an existential threat to our freedom and democracy! We have to do everything in our power to stop them! Except, you know, doing anything. That would be inconceivable.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago (2 children)

If you VOTE for the Person who CURRENTLY HAS THE POWER TO REIGN IN THE FASCIST COURT they'll do something about the Court! Pinky Promise!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

He needs to get rid of these traitors

[–] h3mlocke@lemm.ee 15 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Fuck the Biden campaign, that should be their whole platform now. But instead they use it to threaten us.

Edit: still, im voting for him...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] makeasnek@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Read the article, not the headline, he's not saying he won't do it or would veto legislation around it. He says he'll consider court reform. He's "dismissing it" as a thing to focus on right now because you need an an unrealistic amount of congressional votes to pack the court. Good luck with that. The supreme court interprets laws, with less votes than you need to expand it, you can write blisteringly clear legislation that leaves no room for interpretation. Supreme court problem solved.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›