• givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    382
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    The statement:

    The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.

    Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.

    I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.

    This is what leadership is, what voters want, and what wins elections.

    Doesn’t matter if it works, it’s trying and highlighting that issues can be fixed. We might not succeed the first time, but we’ll keep fucking trying till we do.

    Put the votes on record and show voters where people stand.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        116
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Imagine having a candidate that got more popular after speaking in public…

        We literally haven’t even passed that low of a bar in over a decade. I don’t understand what’s happened to people.

        People as a whole are more politically aware than I’ve ever seen, but we’re just wasting it.

        • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          7 months ago

          We have to undo decades of policy enacted the much longer politically aware and active owner class. They’ve had a head start on us, so it’s going to take tome to dismantle the political machinery they’ve created while minimizing harm done to the rest of us.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            32
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            7 months ago

            We actually don’t.

            A single progressive president means they get to name the DNC chair and a bunch of voting positions.

            It’s literally that easy to take over the party.

            Obama just didn’t do it because he didn’t need the party after they turned on him for opposing Hillary.

            If he’d have rebuilt it, we’d have a functional progressive party planning decades ahead already. And trump would still just be that guy from the Mac Miller song. The SC would be a progressive majority. The situation and Gaza wouldn’t have turned into an open genocide, COVID would have been handled appropriately.

            It’s not some insurmountable task, but it gets harder and harder every cycle.

            By all rights we should have had protests in the streets calling for Biden and the DNC leadership to step down for stealing NH’s delagets. But not enough people had crossed their personal lines by then.

            If we’d have had the fight then, we’d have had a full primary almost to figure shit out.

            But we didn’t.

            Until we finally do, shit won’t change.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                We should have learned that confidence is the one thing you can’t fake. A candidate can be confident for illogical reasons, but that’s still more convincing than being right but not being confident. It creates this weird effect where once people get too smart, they become less decisive and people perceive that as less confident.

                The stereotypical nerd.

                Gore probably would have been a top 10 president. But he couldn’t sell himself to voters just a little more. And if memory recalls, he technically didn’t even have to concede. Like, if he had waited I believe the recounts were actively happening. He didn’t even let it run down to the final vote.

                But I think its important to note not a single Dem Senator challenged it either which would have been even better than Gore challenging it

                Bernie would have most likely, but he wasn’t in yet. Biden could have done it, but he didn’t, same with most of the current Dem leadership.

                So Gore should have planted his feet, and voters should have gotten behind, probably would have. But the party didn’t have Gore’s back either. And Gore wasn’t confident enough to try it without the party.

                It’s crazy how shit comes so close and has such widespread consequences. Just one Dem senator back then dragging it out till a final count would have done it.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        I want AOC with vice president Bernie.

        That man may be in his final years of politics, and perhaps too old to be at the helm, but dammit, he deserves it.

        • BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          7 months ago

          I saw him speak the other day and he was totally with it. Like that super old person who lives to be 120 and is sharp as fuck right until their body gives up, but until then they are firy and physically fit.

      • Kalkaline @leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Literally has had one minor mis-step with the railroad union strike, telling them to go back to work, and they still got the deal they wanted in the end. She hasn’t just earned my vote for POTUS should she choose to run, but she’s got my full support. Heck, I might start throwing campaign contributions her way if she makes a POTUS try.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          So, not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties…

          … those aren’t missteps?

          and they still got the deal they wanted in the end

          Is it in the fucking contract? no? Then they got jack shit.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 months ago

              I’m not the one waiving a magic wand thinking Biden is a perfect candidate.

              You are.

              As I’ve said elsewhere, baring Biden himself stepping down it’s suicide for any one to oppose him. So no I’m not going to enter that fucking argument with someone who can’t even see what’s clearly before them.

              Especially considering I’m guessing you give credit for the American recovery act to Biden even as you’d scramble to insist Biden doesn’t have the power to pass law.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            not codifying RvW as promised, not protecting voter rights, not protecting civil liberties…

            Conservatives (including Manchin and Sinema) stopped all of that. I hate the Dem party and despise neoliberals (AKA the other conservatives), but conservatives are fully to blame for those specific issues.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You’re right. They’re fascists doing fascist things.

              So what’s *Biden *done about it? what action has he successfully taken against the erosion of rights americans used to enjoy?

              Don’t sit there and tell me POTUS is totally powerless to do anything. He’s not. we both know he’s not. even with a divided congress half of which is totally obstructionist, Biden is not powerless.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        AOC will not survive after Trump wins.

        “Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words?”
        The poster bearer cried
        “Listen, son,” said the man with the gun
        “There’s room for you inside”

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s the thing though, with the Republicans in charge there will NEVER be a vote on this. They won’t allow it.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yeah. But it’s provocative, it gets the people going.

        That translates to more voters and more small donors.

        Two things that are kind of important 4 months before a general election.

      • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        The minority party has seized control by eroding the foundation of democracy. The sad part is that most people don’t even realize how fucked we are.

    • just_another_person@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      68
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing. There’s literally no other way to win here if somebody else steps in. Sad that people try to do good in their job as a public representative for their people, and just fucking can’t.

      Edit to say: don’t just take my word for it. Ask Bernie Sanders. Did he win the presidency at some point? I just must have…,…

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        66
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing

        Imagine saying that after Obama flipped a bunch of red states and brought in a shit ton of down ballot races.

        AOC is polarizing, but not as much as Obama and it’s easier the second time around.

        Hell, no body even really mentioned Biden being Catholic in 1988. You should have seen the shit they said about JFK. And similar time-frames passed between.

        And strictly police wise, the country is a lot more open to progressive policy than in 08, and again, everyone said Obama was too “polarizing” right up till election results.

        • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I will vote for her so hard given the chance. Unfortunately, I’m still just one vote. I want to agree with you, but I’m not sure I can. I’d sure love to see her give it a real run, with a DNC that supporter her and didn’t drag her to the center or actively undercut her primary chances.

        • just_another_person@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          22
          ·
          7 months ago

          There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now. Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            There be the facts, friend. It’s just how it works right now

            What?

            Literally what’s how what works?

            Any time you figure out a better system you can get implemented, I’m all ears.

            Fair and open primaries, mate.

            I’ve been saying it since NH had their delegates stolen.

            Well, this cycle, almost a decade now in total. This ain’t exactly a new problem, and it’s not like no one can think of a solution.

            It’s just not easy beating corporate money in primaries until enough Dem voters demand the party sets higher standards. And most people only pay atteyonce every 4 years, then they’re too exhausted to care about politics.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        She’s not polarising. The oligarchy controlled media that constantly paint her as some kind of radical are polarising.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            37
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            Have you seen what they say about Joe Biden?

            They’d call trump Joseph Stalin if there was a D by his name.

            It literally doesn’t matter how progressive a candidate we run, because they’ll say the same shit about anyone.

            Moderates try to defend and talk about how conservative they really are. Alienating their voters. AOC would fucking own that shit and explain how it helps everyone.

            What we’re doing isn’t working. And Biden himself keeps saying he’s powerless as president, so why not fucking try what worked for literal decades and there was no rational reason we ever stopped?

          • TopRamenBinLaden@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Obama was that bogeyman from 2008 to 2016. Considering that he won two elections during that time, I don’t think Fox News is really relevant to AOC.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          Repubs have spent decades feeding propaganda to their fear-addicted voting base. And they’re still squawking away with Fox and Sinclair. I’d love to see her run but I’m not certain it would be successful.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        because she’s too polarizing.

        She shares a lot of views with Bernie Sanders, and Berni would almost surely have defeated Trump where Hillary failed.
        As I see it, she is not nearly as polarizing as Trump. The only ones strongly against her, are probably extreme Christians and Nazis.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          7 months ago

          Republicans boosted Sanders, not because they liked him. But because they knew it would, and did divide their opposition for the next decade or more. Had Sanders gotten the nomination. They’d have smeared him worse than Clinton.

          • Rookwood@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That’s the thing about Bernie. He’s hard to smear. Unlike, “my husband cheated on me while serving as President” Hillary. You’re delusional.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              The fact that they didn’t take the time to really try to smear him doesn’t mean he’s hard to smear. There were a lot of accusations that could have gotten a lot of play Propaganda wise. Like him and his wife honeymooning in Russia. That got bare minimal play during the campaign because it was much more handy to keep the Democrats divided. In fact I think it was probably Democrats that pointed that out. But since they don’t directly control the messaging machine. And the people who do did not want that message out it didn’t get out.

              Just to point this out to you since you seem to not understand. Smears don’t have to be true. Often they aren’t. All you need to smear someone successfully is a consistent message driven into them.

          • Buffalox@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That doesn’t really make her polarizing, that’s just the right wing media treating her unfairly, as they do with every progressive Democrat, except a bit more, because she is popular.

            • just_another_person@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              7 months ago

              No, it makes her polarizing because the viewers of certain media thinks she’s a fucking liberal who will literally sweep your house, take you gums, sell them, and give the profit to "illegals’.

              This was a literal interpretation about her from ImfoWars. It’s a fucking thing. She won’t win.

              • Buffalox@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                18
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                People who follow infowars are already radicalized, and will say any moderate is polarizing. They want a Fuhrer, they want to exterminate LGBT and colored people. Their opinion is irrelevant, because there is no talking sense to those people. Just see how the MAGA people threw a fit, because their house leader “compromised” after 8 months of negotiating, and getting everything they asked for!!!
                They are beyond reach, and they are the ones polarizing, not rational sensible people like AOC, that actually tries to make life better for most people.

                If not only wanting to do things for the rich, the white and Christians, makes you polarizing, then a polarizing candidate is the only reasonable option.

              • ultranaut@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                7 months ago

                Literally, anyone who threatens the interests served by right-wing media is going to see themselves transformed into a bogeyman by right-wing media. That’s how it works. That AOC is “polarizing” according to them is because of the threat she poses to them. If you’re letting right-wing media define the boundaries of who is an acceptable candidate, you will never defeat them.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        7 months ago

        I really don’t think that’s true. People said the same with Obama, and he really never faced that in voters, the GOP was viciously attacking him and it never stuck. There is a stage big enough, that the most vicious attackers do get lost in the crowd.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yup, never stuck. They won all the mid terms during his administration handily. Maintaining super majorities in Congress the whole time. Nope, they were never ever shellacked (Obamas phrasing) in the midterms over “obamacare”. No matter how you phrased it obamacare or ACA the publics approval was always the same they adored it right?

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        IMHO, the only reason she’s “polarizing” is because the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her. People like her are a threat to them. She’s young, smart, and charming. She’s like Obama once was, only she’s even younger than he was. She’s still a year too young to run.

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          the right has chosen to run a smear campaign on her

          And they run smear campaigns on EVERYONE with a D in front of their name, regardless of how far to the left they actually are. Democrats are playing a losing game by worrying about how the Republican media are going to portray them.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Their screaming means nothing anymore. Conservative media will panic-attack absolutely anyone who runs against the GOP with the exact same extreme deception and conspiracy theories.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        And yet, she’ll never win a presidential election because she’s too polarizing.

        She’ll never make it through the primaries because she’s a progressive.

  • UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    175
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

      1. Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.

      2. Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

      They’re already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

        • MNByChoice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Go. Start some research, and head out. Many countries you can just enter. Call it a vacation for the first year and see if you like it.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            It wasn’t a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.

            • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.

    • Akuden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      118
      ·
      7 months ago

      The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        92
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.

        Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Trumps own legal team has described political assassinations as qualifying as an official act as president

          • blazera@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            ·
            7 months ago

            It is! in the dissenting opinion in which Sotomayor explicitly describes this ruling as granting immunity for political assassinations

      • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        There’s some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can’t handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.

        However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn’t matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.

        And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today’s ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.

        Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          53
          ·
          7 months ago

          No, the president cannot kill an American on Americain soil. Get a hold of yourself.

          • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            The supreme court disagrees with you, but OK I’ll bite.

            Why can’t a president kill an american citizen on american soil? Because it’s illegal? Do you understand that that that no longer applies to the president?

          • Test_Tickles@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            So you are saying he just has to wait until he leaves American soil? You’re right, that’s so inconvenient.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.

        The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.

        What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          39
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No, that’s not how any of this works. You clearly don’t understand. A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        But he can commit official acts that happen to be criminal. Semantics are fun!

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          34
          ·
          7 months ago

          That’s literally not true. An official act cannot be a criminal act. Once it’s a criminal act it’s unofficial.

          Read the ruling.

          • noride@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Your logic doesn’t even follow. Why would the president need immunity for a non-criminal act? Think about it for like 2 seconds dude.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Supreme court literally just said he could by saying Jan 6 was fine for President to incite

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        If they are traitors and terrorists, he may have to send them to Guantanamo.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.

        Official act or not?

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 months ago

          The ruling says that Biden would have charges brought against him, and the court (not the supreme Court mind you) would decide wether or not the act was in an official capacity.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.

    • Buffalox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can have it, if enough people fight for it. Now the president can practically do it all by himself.

  • snekerpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    DO IT! DO IT NOW! You have to show them the checks and balances. There is no god king, there is no one that is not accountable for their actions. Impeach every single one that was nominated by him. Illegitimate court.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!

  • tea@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.

    I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:

    1. Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.

    2. Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).

    3. Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.

    4. Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.

    5. Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it’ll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.

    6. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.

    7. (edit) I can’t believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following “official acts” or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.

    While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago
      1. Yes please.

      2. The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.

      3. You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.

        • Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
      4. This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.

      5. Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I’m not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.

      6. I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮‍💨

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        This is a “should happen” list not a “will happen” or “could happen” list. No delusions here, just felt good to say it out loud, given today’s news. I’d also take that unicorn. My kids would go bananas.

      • erp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        General Mills added unicorn marbits in 2018, so this sounds appropriate!

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    You go get 'em, AOC. Personally, I’d like to see the Declaration of Independence rewritten so that it doesn’t give this false impression about our form of government and kings.

  • AuroraZzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 months ago

    The president should just get rid of the supreme court justices he doesn’t want. He can legally do that now bc of the supreme court

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    7 months ago

    They should not only be impeached, but charged with 340 million counts of violating the civil rights of the American people (multiplied by dozens of rulings). Life in prison for those criminals.

  • penquin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Man, this country has turned into a fat joke. I’m just done

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because eating poisonous animals is dangerous and we all know that Thomas and Kavanaugh have the most toxic blood possible while being able to pass as human from a medical point of view.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    It has become a necessity at this point. That is, if anyone wants to maintain any semblance of sanity

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The Democrat from New York wrote that the court has become “consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control” and that it’s “up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.”

    The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy.

    It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture.I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.

    In a statement after the ruling, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Democrats would “engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution.”

    But the act of filing impeachment articles represents a significant escalation in Democrats’ efforts to exercise greater oversight over the high court, which has faced numerous ethics scandals in recent years while issuing a spate of conservative opinions that have upended decades of precedent, including the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

    The last (and only) time a Supreme Court Justice has been impeached was 220 years ago, when Samuel Chase survived an effort to remove him in 1804 over his handling of two politically sensitive trials.


    The original article contains 357 words, the summary contains 208 words. Saved 42%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!