this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
176 points (86.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43939 readers
419 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He can’t. His only power over SCOTUS is nominating Justices in the event of a vacancy.
Congress can, but Republicans control the House.
They won't control the House after a few official acts.
That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?
"...Enemies foreign and domestic."
No, because he's a coward and an appeaser.
Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.
But you'd know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?
So Biden can officially assassinate the entire Republican side and the supreme Court and because he was president when he ordered it, it is legal?
That's the dissent's warning.
I guess the surviving members of the Court can reopen the question!
Yes, exactly. "They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President."
That claim isn't even entirely untrue.
But Biden himself came out and spoke about the ruling (paraphrasing) "we need presidents to use their power with caution and respect the (self imposed) limitations of it. I'll continue to do just that. The next guy might not do so and that's concerning."
Just a big ol' shrug from Biden... "I won't do it, but he sure as hell will."
Thanks Mr.Virtue... where is all that virtue when it comes to Palestinians?
No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?
I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.
https://www.supremecourt.gov
Transcripts are posted after rulings.
Or you could just read one of the many, many, many articles quoting her dissent.
Or watch a video quoting her.
https://youtu.be/IOyItzldEBM?si=7qSrhX1P6npUdj0b
You could at least make it easy and post a link to the pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Like you read it regardless.
Not all of it, obviously. But if you want someone else to, you should consider not making them search through a different website to try to find it.
It's on the landing page, in the third "recent rulings" that helpfully even has Trump in the name, but go on.
The standard for citations has been established a long time and there’s no good reason to change it.
Lol
Oh that’s right you have no idea what I’m referring to. My bad.
LOL
I can understand how a person with no ability to articulate things wouldn’t grok or appreciate good citation design.
Ooh wait here we go:
Said the guy "groking" things
🤣
You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:
So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.
It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.
Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.
Yup! It will be the 5th circuit almost certainly. It's the Republican rubber stamp circuit...
a man can but dream...
This is wrong. He can pack the courts RIGHT NOW. The Democratic party still holds the Senate. There is no requirement for there to only be nine justices.
Edit: This does require the house changing the number of justices. So the above is incorrect.
He cannot. The Republicans have House majority.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20of%20the%20United%20States&text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20stipulate,Justices%2C%20including%20one%20Chief%20Justice.
Oh, you are right about that.
With every House seat up for election, as well as 33 Senate seats, Democrats need to vote hard this fall for congressional majority if we want to put SCOTUS in check.