• Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’m clairvoyant and I can see the future: They won’t. It’s always been all bark and no bite when it comes to armed revolution here in the states.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Well I suppose not always. We did have a revolutionary war and a civil war.

        But anybody alive today? Less bite than a newborn.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Also the Whiskey rebellion and Union/county wars, but nobody remembers them because they were relatively small. Also a lot of Rednecks especially Boomers and Gen X ended up being fucken bootlickers, sure there are some of us within Gen Z who are trying to revers the damage but well culture rarely moves fast.

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Hey now, don’t besmirch the name Redneck with those sad sods. The Rednecks fought the good fight at the Battle of Blair Mountain, only to be put down by the US military backing robber barons.

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Oh no I agree, I was moreso opining the damage done to Redneck culture as a whole. I may be of the Southern Californian variety and have little to no relations to those fine sons of bitches in the Appalachians but I have nothing but respect for mine distant kin. No I was simply stating that the bootlickers in who were taken advantage of through several points of cultural weakness did a shit tonne of damage. I have had the pleasure of talking to Rednecks of the Greatest generation and Silent generation, theyre no shits given savagery is something I wish I could muster but given the fact at least one of them car bombed one of his bosses and smuggled guns to the IRA I can say that I will never match up. But im still doing better than the Boomers.

      • agent_nycto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        To be fair, the fighting would be guerilla warfare which the us hasn’t been that great at dealing with.

      • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Exactly why I think americans who say the 2A needs to stay to overthrow a fascist government is full of shit. I would love to be proven wrong though

      • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        And that’s why they didn’t bother with guns in Iraq. Defeating the Americans was hopeless; mission accomplished.

        • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          This response is so weird I can’t quite tell what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Iraqis resisted with small arms fire? Because that’s not the case.

          More US citizens die each year in the US from guns than US soldiers died in the entirety of the Iraq war. And it’s not a small difference either - each year 4-5x as many citizens die from gun violence. Not including suicides (which would more than double the number)

          So was your post trying to say the small arms resistance in Iraq was effective?

      • problematicPanther@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        We could probably mount a pretty decent resistance with what we have available. look what happened in iraq during the occupation. insurgency would be the way to go in a rebellion against the us govt.

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s still good enough to shoot people who accidentally step on your lawn, or the teachers and co-students you had a disagreement with.

      • pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        When a group of American freedom fighters go to take over a U.S.A. military base and hesitant soldiers aren’t sure if they should follow a traitorous president or their oath to the Constitution, the American freedom fighters being well-armed will make the difference.

  • Apothenon1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.

    The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.

    No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.

    Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The sad thing is that you’re completely correct.

      It’s over. This is the beginning of the true end. The end has been in sight for a while now, but it was always over the horizon.

      Now we can actually see it.

      There is not a way for us to legally come back from this.

      In retrospect, I guess that we should have seen it coming that the Supreme Court of lifelong, unelected officials would be our undoing.

      It’s pretty sad that we’re all taking this lying down with all of our Second Amendment talk.

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      And Europe’s next. Another far right puppet of Putin will be elected to run a European country in the next few weeks. Just shows that Europe follows the US in lockstep with a 5 year delay.

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE if he decides to Assassinate a Supreme Court Justice according to the Supreme Court Justices!

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They’ll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.

      Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king…

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.

          • TaterTurnipTulip@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way…

            This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.

          • notanaltaccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Wild response

            The idea od suggesting following any prior tactics of Andrew Jackson is revolting, as cool as your response is

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn’t have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court “ultimate decider” powers wasn’t a problem.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      But he won’t, and neither will any Dem presidents, which is what the right wing SCOTUS is counting on.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            9 people had the power as a group, and they decide how to use it. They all had a say, and after that a decision was made.
            Yes 3 were against, but it’s still the decision of the group.

            • pleasejustdie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              at which point 3 people’s views were ignored which is why they dissented to the majority opinion. Joe Biden in 2020 had 51.5% of the vote, under your same logic 155 million people as a group decided to elect Joe Biden. Which, while technically true, you’re pushing semantics at that point that minimizes the differences in views and opinions.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I see from your own argument that you were a Trump supporter in 2016. Not someone I’d listen about anything.

                • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  The person you’re arguing with made the point that if you hold the ones who voted against the bad thing happening as partly responsible, by the same logic, you should hold people who voted for Clinton in 2016 partly responsible for the election of Trump.

                  I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the entire USA including you is responsible for Trump becoming president and the entire SCOTUS is responsible for today’s ruling, or you’re not responsible for Trump winning and the three dissenters are also not responsible for today’s ruling.

                  I get that you’re angry, and it’s a good day to be angry, the day that they ended democracy, but maybe be more selective about who you’re angry with and sometimes try to check if maybe there are some valid things people can disagree with you about.

            • samus12345@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              It’s similar to saying a team played badly

              Yes, but the comment didn’t say that the SCOTUS decided, it said 9 people did. Would you say that 53 people played badly? That’s how many are on the team, after all.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people

          funny how you are proud of your kindergarten logic

          and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.

          and the majority in this case was… wait for it… SIX PEOPLE 😂

          so “the court decided to…” or “6 members decided to…” is true, but “9 members decided to…” is not true, because 3 members decided not to.

          similarly you can say “51% of people voted for biden” or “people voted for biden”, but not “100% of people voted for biden” - because that would simply not be true.

          if you have any other difficult question, like why is water wet, don’t hesitate to ask 😂

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Trump’s appointments tipped the balance. They didn’t “decide” as much as been taken over. It’s a part of the judicial system gone rogue and Congress is supposed to reign it back in.

      • VådFisk@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        All 9 were part of the decision making. For me it is amazing that so important decisions are left to so few

        • Carrolade@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Someone must always make decisions, a world where no decisions are made would devolve into a Mad Max type thing, where the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom would become very readily apparent. We used to decide these things with trial by combat, where the most skilled warrior (or who chose the most skilled as their champion) was right because God apparently said so, by making him so good at fighting. Still a person making a decision. Not far off from a world where you decide if someone was a witch by trying to build a bridge out of them.

          The modern trick is dividing up the decision-making power so much that nobody can assemble it all into their personal toolkit and fully embrace corruption with no consequences.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    What he did was not official. Now the lower court gets to decide what is official, and it’s being intentionally slowed down until AFTER the election so the current admin can’t go ballswild with the new allowances. Fuck these Maga-locing shitheads on the SC.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It’s technically treasonous.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.

            • snooggums@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.

              His public tweets would be admissible.

  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean… I actually agree with (aspects of) that ruling. A nation’s leader is going to have to, by necessity, do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

    The issue is defining what counts as an “official act” and having any kind of checks and balances on that.

    For example: Let’s look at the purely hypothetical example of an outgoing president engaging in a violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to prevent losing power. Crazy, right? But, in that example, it is not at all a stretch that said former president is an enemy of the state. There is a lot of legal discussion on whether it is legal to pop them in the head without a series of trials but it is in that range where it is probably better than not to give the elected POTUS immunity in that situation.

    But what if that outgoing president insisted that it was an “official act” to lead that violent insurrection? No intelligent person would at all consider that a defense.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”

      Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is “legal”, and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.

      For an “official” act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn’t be possible for an illegal act to be “official”.

      Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can’t even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can’t mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Prior presidents have done all kinds of shady shit without worrying about prosecution. Even the angry orange didn’t get charged until he tried to overthrow an election.

      There was zero reason to even decide this case except to give immunity to someone who blatantly abuses their authority.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      From the dissent:

      Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless

      When the foremost observers of the fascist cabal say their ruling is “just as bad as it sounds”, I will take their word for it.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are “absolutely” immune from criminal prosecution when their actions involve allegedly official acts while they were in office.

    In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts remanded the case to the lower courts, which now have to determine whether Trump’s conduct was official or unofficial.

    A grand jury approved an indictment against Trump in August for charges including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding.

    Trump faces a series of legal challenges across the country both at the state and federal levels.

    Most recently, he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in a trial over hush money payments, including payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress a story about her and Trump having sex.

    That means — unlike in the state case — that if Trump were convicted but elected president, he could potentially pardon himself.


    The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Surely if something he does is unconstitutional, it is not within his official capacity or power!?
    But somehow I have a feeling I’m being extremely naive just thinking that.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The SCOTUS majority just decided that nothing the president does is illegal, at least in a way that can ever be prosecuted.

  • neidu2@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Biden can now legally shoot Trump on stage during the next debate. Gotcha.

    I don’t think having a raspy voice will be the biggest talking point in the aftermath this time.

    And if anyone raises a stink and somehow manages to prove that this was illegal anyway, I’m sure it’s the same people who have claimed that he’s senile anyway.

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Biden could, but he won’t. We’re just going to get more finger wagging and muttering at him about being a scoundrel and shit.

      • neidu2@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Correct. He’s still trying to Chamberlain when it’s long overdue that he goes full Kubiš & Gabčík.

      • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        “The only way to solve this is by voting harder.” They leave out the “for the next 30 years, continuously, until the court is rebalanced through natural causes and decides to undo what is now ‘precedent’”.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sotomayor’s written dissent explicitly says that this decision makes the US President a king that and can now act with impunity. This is effectively the end of the republic as described by the constitution.

    • FringeTheory999@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ok, so biden can officially order the assassination of the right wing supreme court justices and Trump, then appoint replacement judges and lobby congress for a constitutional amendment permanently stripping presidents of their absolute immunity. Since his orders would have occurred while he had immunity, he’d be in the clear, he’d have illustrated the flaw in the ruling, removed a dangerous individual, and prevented future abuses. Win.

      • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        He could just dissolve the supreme court, it would be a little easier. I doubt the (current) military would actually carry out any sort of assassination. The military leadership are selected and it is instilled in them to pledge loyalty to the nation, not the president.

          • Reptorian@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            There are some democratic politicians that might be interested into taking the offer up, but it isn’t public, nor they won’t reveal it. Can’t name any, but I can imagine at least 1 is out there. On the other side of aisle, we already know Republicans wants to enact the fourth reich and just about all of them wants to execute their political opponents.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          He won’t, but honor has nothing to do with it. He’s a democrat and therefore unwilling to wield power he’s been given.

    • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Biden can be the first President since Washington to give back the power to We the People. He needs some official acts that return the power back to We the People. If they’re considered crimes by the right wing fascists, don’t worry. It would take too long to investigate, prosecute, and hold him accountable. His old age is also a super power!

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Biden definitely needs to make a move here, but I don’t see that working. There’s a difference between “the POTUS is immune from criminal liability”, and “the POTUS has the power to alter the government as they choose”, at least, there is for a President that isn’t going to enforce their changes with violence, which Biden hasn’t shown any sign of being.

        Perhaps there’s a way to swing this new legal freedom in a way that does something like that, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. I do at least know that, if this isn’t addressed A fucking SAP, then the US is in some serious trouble.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Everything’s possible through the magic of drone strikes. “Oh, I can’t do that, can I? Well, I’ll just call up the ol’ reaper team and see what they think. You’re going to miss the impeachment hearing, btw, and so will everyone else if they know what’s good for them”

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Again, I already addressed the violence approach. Does nobody read the full comment?

        • Zorg@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          That all sounds very complicated, there is a much simpler way, in an official act of course, to deal with traitors:

          Title 18 §2381. Treason

          Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, …

          • Ech@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            I already commented on Biden’s willingness to enact violence on his political rivals.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        What a power move that could be.

        “Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”

        • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is how the power could be used for good and to restore our democracy. King Joe needs to do this and then give up the power that Chief Justice Roberts and his corrupt cohorts gave him. He needs to move swiftly or even HYPER EXPEDITIOUSLY.

          Accountability for these biased, compromised, and corrupt Justices needs to happen now. Special Ops need to deploy and execute ASAP.

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    If anyone ever doubted that the DNC and the GOP weren’t on the same team, just watch as the DNC let this opportunity slip right through their fingers. Access to the greatest political, strategical, minds and they will let this opening wash away into a river of fascism.

    It’s a play, we are watching theatre. Meant to keep you distracted. Meant to keep you oppressed.

        • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          For starters, by spending the last 4 years training a different candidate to beat trump this year.

          But failing that, they could absolutely have prevented that disaster on the debate. They knew full well how the rest of America will react to seeing Biden look like that, and I find it no coincidence that it happened directly before The Supreme Court ruled to overturn Chevron and Grant immunity to Trump.

          • Fluba@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            While that is interesting, you realize before the 4 years you mentioned, Trump did everything he’s in trouble for doing. He also established the supreme court we have. If Biden randomly died his first 5 months, we still would be in a similar (if not the same) situation. Every person who made this happen, would still have their previously established power. Training someone new would not have stopped this inevitability.

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        Cymraeg
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        We could all collectively decide to chop the heads off of the elite. We don’t need to argue about which capitalist is better every 4 years. There’s nothing physically stopping 90% of the country from just overthrowing the other 10% if we really tried together