Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I don't understand how the scotus didn't see this coming. What do dictators hate? Anyone who has any possible power over them, so what do dictators do? Arrest or kill any possibility of opposition and number one was always gonna be scotus. They killed themselves
See, the thing is that conservatives always believe that they're deeper into the in group than they really are. They can't imagine themselves as part of the out group. Quick example, about five years back, I had a fox news addicted co-worker bitching at me about millennials. I was like "bro, we're in our thirties, we're not kids anymore", because he and I are both the same age, and both millennials. He looked like I just slapped him and said "no, I am NOT a millennial", so, because I physically cannot stop myself from arguing with anyone about anything, I spent five minutes proving to him that he was, in fact, a millennial. He put up the WOKE FAKE NEWS^tm^ defenses, cleared recent history, and was back to griping about millennials before the day was out, still supporting things that hurt millennials and not daring the imagine that Fox News could possibly be talking about him. He's the child of immigrants, he's got his citizenship by his dad being born here and him being born here. He supports rounding up brown people and ending birthright citizenship because he'll still believe right down to his core that they're not talking about him even as they're loading him into the box cars.
I would say it's a crisis of empathy, but I'm not sure that's completely true. I'm not going to fight people on Lemmy about it, but I personally know my own share of conservative people who have no problem with empathy (and many who do have a problem with it, in fairness). I think it's a distinct phenomenon that they really do believe that it could never happen to them, or to anyone who doesn't "deserve it". I've encountered that kind of circular logic quite a bit, where if their policies hurt you, it's probably because you deserved it, and their policies can't possibly hurt them because they know they don't deserve it.
A lot of it comes down to the Just World Fallacy
They believe that, fundamentally, the world is just and good (mostly that stems from religion and a just "god", but not always). This means that when something bad happens, they assume the person must have deserved it, because bad things don't happen to good people. They also believe they are a good person, and therefore bad things won't happen to them. When something bad DOES happen to them, they start screaming from the rooftops that some radical injustice has occurred and somebody needs to do something to make it right! Completely unaware of the fact that nobody from their "tribe" will believe them, because the fact that something bad happened to them meant they must have been a bad person who deserved it.
I know quite a few spanish speaking people here who are hyper conservative. In general latin america is a greatly more conservative place than the US, so it's kind of amazing seeing the conservatives here targeting them.
Poorer immigrants usually work in conservative spaces for poverty wages especially if they are not fluent in English, but the conservatives want to kick them out and start the white breeding programs to get some more white homegrown poverty cases going in red states.
I know that central Americans are very socially conservative; in general, that's the way with rural people. I also know that there's an economic left undercurrent that's been present for a long time; it's why the CIA overthrew the Guatemalan government for United Fruit and sponsored reactionary militias to go around murdering people and torching villages. I think that the right wing of the US never really forgave central America for "making us" (massive sarcasm quotes) destabilize their governments. The other half of that is that we've basically caused this crisis in our back yard, which is kind of the opposite problem to modern Russia. Where the USSR built up, modernized, and industrialized the countries it had direct control/ influence over, the US has done everything possible to keep central and south America down, so now you end up with Russia eager to reclaim (by any means) the valuable parts of the USSR that fell away in the 90s, and the US eager to keep out the people fleeing the shit we've been flinging over the wall for the better part of a hundred years.
They believe the law is always on the side of good, despite much evidence to the contrary, and the mere fact that the law can be changed making it intrinsically not a moral absolute.
The SCOTUS justices who voted to make the president a king should've been dropped in a black site immediately upon that decision coming out, but Biden didn't have the fortitude or vision to protect the country from fascism.
Federal judges can deputize people and make them US Marshals to execute warrants. The federal judges could also send people to arrest Trump. They don't have the balls to do it, but its legal.
The federal judges could also send people to arrest Trump.
No, they cannot, because federal authorities won't prosecute a sitting US President. Only the House, by way of Impeachment, and the Senate, by way of conviction can anything be done about Trump now.
Additionally, SCOTUS gave the President total immunity when it comes to "official actions" which is not at all defined in any capacity, so the interpretation is up in the air. All's Trump has to do is argue that these are official actions and nothing can feasibly be done.
So he demands a sitting supreme court justice be arrested and they are. It goes to court and its found Trump can't do that. The judge is released, and nothing happens to Trump at all. So he tries again. And again. And again. Until he's finally successful.
Roe v. Wade was considered the law of the land and no one ever thought it could ever be overturned. Republicans tried for over 50 years to get it reversed which everyone agreed was a fools errand. And then they did... Just because something can't happen doesn't mean it really can't happen.
3 things:
First off, you literally started an argument explaining that something can't happen, then ended it by saying that something that can't happen can happen, and that hurts my brain a bit.
Secondly, one reason reason a judge can deputize people is for cases where the executive branch or law enforcement has gone rogue and they need to enforce the law outside of the regular channels.
Third, the whole "Can't arrest or charge a sitting President for any crime" thing isn't a law, but a justice department policy. Deputized law enforcement and prosecutors from outside of the justice department wouldn't be bound by that policy.
It's not even a policy, it's a literal post it note memo with no known author.
only Congress has that authority through impeachment, a sitting president is immune to indictment
That is a DoJ POLICY, not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. It has never really been tested, everybody has just gone along with it all these years. SCOTUS gave the president immunity, but with a loophole: it has to be part of his presidential duties. It could be argued that arresting opponents for doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs is NOT within the President's duties, and therefore he would not be immune. Same with doing things like ordering the military to fire on American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It will be up to SCOTUS to decide, and they've already shown that they wont rubber-stamp his nonsense.
If he starts arresting SCOTUS justices, they arent likely to find in his favor for ANYTHING.
Policies inform how the law and system works. The DOJ can change that policy, but since it is essentially under the control of the sitting president, that won't happen.
I think you misunderstand the power dynamic, the president controls the military and if he starts to arrest SCOTUS justices, I don't think the SCOTUS rulings will matter any more, they won't have any way to enforce their rulings that will stand up to the de facto power the president has.
The SCOTUS rulings are already being ignored by this administration on other decisions that were made by them, so you could say we're already past that.
Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.
Listening to this blonde reincarnation of Ri Chun-hee is ... interesting. So close, she should wear pink. They did show a short statement by her on the BBC, and I counted more lies than sentences. Amazing.
Arrest them for corruption, perhaps? (He said hopefully)
Of course not. Only for disagreeing with him or not supporting his illegal crackdown on Americans he doesn't like.
did you watch the video with the exchange?