this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
871 points (98.4% liked)
Political Memes
5232 readers
1898 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What I mean is - Biden should just not ask for permission & do it per executive order. Establish facts and ask for forgiveness later (like he would care if his own appointed court does not grant him immunity out of principle - he's too old to see the end of such a court case).
Those are measures I would - under normal circumstances - consider highly problematic, alike to a coup d'etat - but in actuality, this would be a counter-coup, because the actual coup is already happening in slow motion for a decade & more, with the Republicans putting corrupt shitheads on the supreme court, instead of qualified judges with at least some resemblance of impartiality.
So - if I were Biden - I'd use the "immunity" ruling to establish a proper neutral supreme court, possibly forcefully removing the corrupt judges, and then let the new, established supreme court rule that this was an "official act" (because it would be very fucking much), but also revoke the previous immunity ruling, and have them independently(!) decide on the necessity / legality of my acts, and potential consequences.
Then let the republicunts choke on their self-created paradox: As the supreme court has confirmed the "official act", do they condemn it anyways and thereby openly admit that their "immunity for official acts" ruling was only "rules for thee but not for me" - and regardless, would they object to the proceedings against me by the new supreme court on the grounds that the immunity ruling has been revoked, and thereby either defend my immunity, or (not objecting) accept the revocation of the immunity clause?
I'd love to see them choke on that.