• DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    7 months ago

    Make it so felons cannot run for president and resign immediately after.

    If he did that Biden would be remembered as one of the greatest presidents ever.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Biden has the chance to do the coolest thing. He wont because hes the most tepid person in the most tepid party in the country but, I’d love to be wrong.

    • thallamabond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 months ago

      Such a good word to describe Biden. Tepid. Like a beer that’s been sitting while i worked outside, or maybe the last sip of coffee. Not the best, but better than nothing.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      When you risk your own life, you’ve got balls.

      When you risk other people’s lives without their permission, you’re an asshole.

    • BigFig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      7 months ago

      What’s stopping him now from dissolving congress? From sending them all back home and requiring governors send new representatives. This situation is the LITERAL slippery slope Republicans have cried about for decades

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        The thing is that they would just not dissolve and say he has no power to do so. Biden is immune from prosecution for this, but he doesn’t have power to dissolve congress and would ignore him.

        What he could do is say that congress (or Trump or SCOTUS for that matter) are a threat to the nation and then have them assassinated or imprisoned. Based on this ruling, he’d be immune from prosecution for this act and would effectively dissolve them by force.

        The fact that it almost incentives the president to take the most extreme and authoritarian action is the scariest part of this ruling to me.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Dissolving congress isn’t an executive branch power. Congress can just ignore something like that.

        The president can’t just will that kind of a thing into existence.

        • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          7 months ago

          Having the FBI arrest half of them and hold them indefinitely is within his authority, he just has to argue they’re terrorists. He could say every member of congress who made statements defending the January 6 insurrection is a terrorist and send them to gitmo. He’s more likely to come after the squad though.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            Every member of congress that was part of the attempt to overthrow rhe election is an insurrectionist and should be detained or in jail by now.

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

          Shooting a gun is well within the president’s power. If he can shoot a gun with no consequences, Congress doesn’t have the ability to ignore shit.

          • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            The President is also the ranking member of the military and could use the military to halt the Congress meeting, since he would be immune. It would also mean that they could not impeach or remove him because he is immune, and you cannot charge someone with immunity.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 months ago

      As an official act you direct the FBI to detain a portion of congres on… let’s see… suspected treason. Then you have congres vote. Isn’t this how dictators do it?

  • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    For real. Biden could seemingly imprison some republicans from both chambers of Congress, and secure a majority in both chambers. From there have congress pass legislation making felons incapable of running for office, and also allowing for all actions a president does liable to prosecution.

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

      You’re thinking too small, he could fucking have Alito and Thomas thrown in jail or hanged if he were so inclined, I’m not saying he should have them hanged, it he totally could based on this ruling

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Immune from criminal prosecution*

    The state AGs can and will still challenge any and all such executive orders.

    But if Biden hypothetically were to kidnap, beat, or murder supreme court justices or political opponents, then that’s another story.

      • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes. To clarify for you:

        One story is he does regular legislative actions, the states can contest it

        another story is he does something criminal as official business, nobody can do shit about it

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

    I keep seeing post and comments like this.

    You all realize it’s only immunity from criminal prosecution, right? It’s not instant dictatorship power over the nation. He’d have to order the assassination of Trump and members of SCOTUS to leverage the ruling for those goals.

  • Flax@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Unpopular opinion: You should be allowed to run for president and be a president even with a criminal record. I don’t support trump and think the convictions are well earned. But democracy is a democracy - it’s up to the people to decide whether or not they should have a convicted criminal in office.

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

      Let’s start with letting felons work and rent apartments in the US before we move on to the presidency.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Those who are suggesting Biden do this or that, are forgetting the most important thing about coup d’état: his “followers” would need to actually act on his orders.

    And even if they were to do that, which I doubt they would, I don’t think SCOTUS made the rank and file immune to prosecution. While they may have made it harder for Jan 6 obstructionists to be pursued, I’m pretty sure that’s limited to those Jan 6’ers. So anyone following Biden’s orders would likely see jail (or worse). Sure Biden could pardon them, but that would only happen if a) Biden was still president after a failed coup, and 2) the people being pardoned would need to be prosecuted first, which is lengthy, disruptive, and expensive.

    This only helps republicans, because as horrible as they are, the one thing they excel at more than their capacity for hate is their ability to unify and work together. Democrats… yeah, ain’t happening.

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

    All this talk about Biden could do all of these administrative things that he can’t legally, but it misses the point.

    Say he pushes some illegal orders. He can not get in trouble for pushing them, but they can be legally challenged and shot down quickly. Especially when you can legally “tip” helpful justices.

    He would need to do things that could not be taken back.

  • Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Its not absolute immunity. Its presumed immunity for official acts. Its literally the same rules as always. He can still go to jail if they can prove it.

    It was basically the supreme court saying “we aint touching this, you figure it out”