• 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.