199
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
199 points (85.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
1942 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
By who, a SCOTUS well within Seal Team Sixing distance?
You claim you read that dissent, but you clearly do not fully understand it.
No no no, you see: Democrats can't do that because it is... perfectly legal?
And obviously the replacements would vote along republican party lines to make it clear that ruling was specifically for trump.
I don't know what that person's problem is but it is pretty clear they are actively arguing in favor of rolling over for the republicans.
No, the DoJ and the FBI, you know, the entities that prosecute people.
Immunity doesn't make something legal, it simply puts the person beyond the reach of the law. You're talking about a commander-in-chief using the military against citizens on US soil. All members of the military are trained to reject unlawful orders.
So first you're assuming seal team six accepts and carries out an unlawful order. Then the entire DoJ ignores it, or is murdered, until they accept it. Then any legislators or justices that attempt to rein in such power are also assassinated. That's what is required for your idea to make sense.
Guess what, SCOTUS is irrelevant to the calculation. Assuming you have all those things above, it doesn't matter if SCOTUS conveys immunity or not. That president is beyond the bounds of the law anyway, with or without immunity.
You mean the entities that Biden, as head of the executive branch, could control as he sees fit (under the "unitary executive" theory underpinning the conservative SCOTUS judges reasoning)?
You're really, really relying on this notion that the noble bureaucrats won't comply, and also won't get replaced with lackeys who would. With Biden as president, you're likely right -- but the power is there for the next person to hold that office to take. Unless Biden does something drastic to force SCOTUS to overturn themselves, anyway.
No, I'm being realistic. It's a system of checks and balances, but it only works when you have a sufficient number of good faith actors. When you have a sufficient number of bad faith actors, or those willing to go completely over-the-top in their corruption, the system doesn't work. Immunity, at the end of the day, is a moot point against that level of bad faith malfeasance, a point you choose to seemingly ignore.
WTF? I'm not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out. SCOTUS enshrined that bad faith malfeasance, and Biden using it against itself is now the only way to stop it.
You're ignoring that Biden won't do it, Dems wouldn't allow him to do it, and the bad faith actors in place aren't Democrats. So no one, at any level, is going to allow Joe Biden to take any of those steps.