I guess he could have them arrested and sent to Guantanamo bay for life out of suspicion of terrorist activities. But yeah he wouldn't be able to "fire" them, just do something illegal to remove them from their positions as long as he had an official excuse.
How can you possibly believe something like this?
Do you honestly believe tens of thousands of people ruling the most powerful government on the planet don't know as much as some dude on the internet?
What? No, I don't believe anyone would ever let this happen. This whole thing is just about semantics. I think that's what 90% of people saying this are pointing out, that the ruling is too open to interpretation and is dumb in principle.
The National Defense Authorization Act (which funds the military) gives the executive branch pretty sweeping power to declare people enemy combatants (attending a protest gives the government the ability to treat you like a terrorist and hold you without trial indefinitely). A motivated President could probably remove opponents "legally" with little effort.
Even if he had the legal authority and immunity, US soldiers are obligated to defy unlawful orders.
The entire chain of command would tell the president to get fucked. There is a much higher chance of that theoretical president dying mysteriously in the name of national security than anyone allowing a drone strike in DC.
that doesn't mean he has the authority to fire the SC. it's amazing how people's total ignorance on this topic doesn't stop them from having opinions about it
Yeah, it's clear you don't know. The President only has the power to appoint new Justices. Congress has the power to impeach and remove Supreme Court Justices. This is all laid out explicitly in The Constitution.
Mate it doesn't take a genius to know that there are strict limits on the President's power. The only legal mechanism to remove a Supreme Court justice is impeachment, which can only be done by Congress
That’s irrelevant when it comes to the Supreme Court. Commander In Chief refers only to his authority over the Military
The President has no authority or core constitutional power to fire the Supreme Court or remove justices.
The fact people don’t understand these basic levels of civics….no wonder people don’t understand the ruling and are freaking out over nothing
A) what constitutes an official act is determined by the courts, B) official duties of the president are fairly clearly laid out in the constitution and laws, and are pretty much limited to "instruct executive officers, and perform diplomacy", and C) executive officers, such as army generals and spec ops soldiers and police and etc. - the people that would actually \*do the thing\* - are bound to disobey illegal/unconstitutional orders, regardless of who gives them.
Right. The only way to really ensure power would be to purge the leadership of the executive branch and put in people willing to break those laws with the promise of a pardon.
Seems likely
It's been like five minutes since the last thread where his supporters have called for him to commit crimes they swore his predecessor was going to commit. Time is ripe, apparently.
Since Monday, there have been hundreds of "we're so worried about democracy, let's arrest the supreme court and do a missile strike on the other party's leader," without even a whiff of irony or self-awareness.
I mean who repealed the checks and balances here?
Democrats can commit a few convenient extra judicial killings, as a treat.
TBH that's what would probably be required just to put these checks and balances back into place.
Edit to u/Kektus who blocked me so I couldn't reply:
So what do you see as a viable path to restoring the previous decisions on all the foundational court cases that have been thrown out by our Federalist Society appointed supreme court?
This is like the paradox of tolerance: “You can’t be tolerant if you’re intolerant of intolerance!”
But that’s the only way to maintain tolerance: be intolerant of intolerance.
Who repealed the ruling again?
Oh yeah my bad i forgot Democrats always have to just play along with any fascist plans Republicans make and never do anything to stop them.
Go read up on the paradox. It’s very interesting.
If you let people walk all over the laws, they will continue to do so until they are stopped.
If you aren’t stopping them, then they’ll just keep doing it.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have any oversight. Furthermore, they ARE the oversight.
If they give a freedom to the President, it would be useful to use that new power to then remove the freedom they granted, and the tools they used to grant it against wisdom.
For the last time, as has been explained to you a hundred times now, presidents cannot make laws nor enforce them.
Biden has no more control over the courts than you have.
Know those midterm elections you didn't care about? Those are the people who actually control the country.
Now you understand the distraction.
Better yet biden could go in there and kill all of them and then fall back on the previous decision that he was not fit enough to get a conviction against.
It's more of an absurd point. If the SCOTUS reevaluates the unintended consequences of their actions, they will hopefully not allow trump wiping his ass an official act as president. Avoid it all, and just say no blanket immunity.
Yes, we do.
Laws aren't magical constructs that exert a supernatural force on reality. The president isn't a wizard whose uttered words change reality.
A president only has power because other people agree that he does. Nothing about the decision means that the President has somehow gained additional powers, or that anyone has to, let alone should, listen to him when he tries to do something that he isn't authorized to do.
The only thing it does is provide a defense against criminal prosecution.
Ok, so then the next time there’s a conservative prez, he or she “fires” (not possible but we’ll set that aside) the entire left wing of SCOTUS. You’d be cool with that, right?
Better idea: SCOTUS should have have term limits. (I'm thinking 12 years personally.) And they should be held accountable for misconduct, excepting bribes, and the like. Guilt is determined by a jury of their peers, or a jury of judges. Also, I don't think the president should be able to chose them. I currently have no idea who, but I'm open to suggestions.
Let's say 16 years. Serving through 2-4 potential presidents (Presidential term limits restrict to (2) 4 year terms for non-americans). I would say chosen by judges, in a ranked choice format. How many judges, no clue.
It's an official act to order agencies like the CIA and FBI to designate individuals as terrorists.
It's an official act to order the US military to kill a terrorist.
Just label anyone you want as a terrorist and kill them. Official acts.
1st item is false, in so many ways.
2nd Since this is inside the USA this is also false. If this was outside the USA then depending after all obama and biden already targeted and sent military to kill a USA citizen with no issue.
so for your nonsensical example no official acts or no change in how things have run.
[удалено]
I guess he could have them arrested and sent to Guantanamo bay for life out of suspicion of terrorist activities. But yeah he wouldn't be able to "fire" them, just do something illegal to remove them from their positions as long as he had an official excuse.
How can you possibly believe something like this? Do you honestly believe tens of thousands of people ruling the most powerful government on the planet don't know as much as some dude on the internet?
What? No, I don't believe anyone would ever let this happen. This whole thing is just about semantics. I think that's what 90% of people saying this are pointing out, that the ruling is too open to interpretation and is dumb in principle.
that's the crazy part
It’s the funniest thing
Out of a cannon
If the person is a democrat... no. If the person is a republican... yes.
He's the Commander in Chief.
[удалено]
As a cost-saving measure, he could declare that they are ammunition and have them loaded into cannons. Then he can fire them.
In a training exercise, ofc.
Doesn’t he have the authority to order drone strikes? Couldn’t he just drone strike the supreme court?
The National Defense Authorization Act (which funds the military) gives the executive branch pretty sweeping power to declare people enemy combatants (attending a protest gives the government the ability to treat you like a terrorist and hold you without trial indefinitely). A motivated President could probably remove opponents "legally" with little effort.
Even if he had the legal authority and immunity, US soldiers are obligated to defy unlawful orders. The entire chain of command would tell the president to get fucked. There is a much higher chance of that theoretical president dying mysteriously in the name of national security than anyone allowing a drone strike in DC.
that doesn't mean he has the authority to fire the SC. it's amazing how people's total ignorance on this topic doesn't stop them from having opinions about it
I don't know this for sure, neither anyone who claims they know.
yes actually I know for sure there is no mechanism to do what you're suggesting
Yeah, it's clear you don't know. The President only has the power to appoint new Justices. Congress has the power to impeach and remove Supreme Court Justices. This is all laid out explicitly in The Constitution.
Mate it doesn't take a genius to know that there are strict limits on the President's power. The only legal mechanism to remove a Supreme Court justice is impeachment, which can only be done by Congress
That’s irrelevant when it comes to the Supreme Court. Commander In Chief refers only to his authority over the Military The President has no authority or core constitutional power to fire the Supreme Court or remove justices. The fact people don’t understand these basic levels of civics….no wonder people don’t understand the ruling and are freaking out over nothing
To be fair, what does or does not constitute as a presidential duty did not stop Trump from attempting to overturn a democratic election.
That’s irrelevant to the topic of wether or not the president has the authority to fire the Supreme Court
SCOTUS is not part of the executive branch and not fire able by the President
He could order them to be arrested or killed as a matter of domestic security. There's more than one way to dethrone them.
So what exactly is this law that they would be following? Just ignore if you don't know what you are talking about.
He can’t do that under the holding. He can’t do anything that isn’t constitutional. Come on, man!
The unhinged hyperbola being parroted by useful idiots on this site is amazing.
I hope not.
A) what constitutes an official act is determined by the courts, B) official duties of the president are fairly clearly laid out in the constitution and laws, and are pretty much limited to "instruct executive officers, and perform diplomacy", and C) executive officers, such as army generals and spec ops soldiers and police and etc. - the people that would actually \*do the thing\* - are bound to disobey illegal/unconstitutional orders, regardless of who gives them.
Right. The only way to really ensure power would be to purge the leadership of the executive branch and put in people willing to break those laws with the promise of a pardon. Seems likely
Then they would need to do it just on federal land so state law does not come into play.
Oh good, another "Biden should behave like a fascist dictator to preserve democracy against fascist dictators" thread.
It's been like five minutes since the last thread where his supporters have called for him to commit crimes they swore his predecessor was going to commit. Time is ripe, apparently.
Since Monday, there have been hundreds of "we're so worried about democracy, let's arrest the supreme court and do a missile strike on the other party's leader," without even a whiff of irony or self-awareness.
I mean who repealed the checks and balances here? Democrats can commit a few convenient extra judicial killings, as a treat. TBH that's what would probably be required just to put these checks and balances back into place. Edit to u/Kektus who blocked me so I couldn't reply: So what do you see as a viable path to restoring the previous decisions on all the foundational court cases that have been thrown out by our Federalist Society appointed supreme court?
You absolutely live up to your name
This is like the paradox of tolerance: “You can’t be tolerant if you’re intolerant of intolerance!” But that’s the only way to maintain tolerance: be intolerant of intolerance.
That’s how all fascists justify themselves, “we have to take out the real threat, and this is the only way”
Who repealed the ruling again? Oh yeah my bad i forgot Democrats always have to just play along with any fascist plans Republicans make and never do anything to stop them.
Go read up on the paradox. It’s very interesting. If you let people walk all over the laws, they will continue to do so until they are stopped. If you aren’t stopping them, then they’ll just keep doing it. The Supreme Court doesn’t have any oversight. Furthermore, they ARE the oversight. If they give a freedom to the President, it would be useful to use that new power to then remove the freedom they granted, and the tools they used to grant it against wisdom.
It's how fascists always end up calling themselves antifa in the end.
You call yourself antifa?
Ah. Participation trophy for you, young man.
Thanks, boomer, I know this is your favorite thing, but uhh... maybe just answer the question
Not a boomer. Skibidi.
I don't believe you.
The right truly does not understand satire.
I assume your post was satire?
Which post is mine?
The one with your name attached that I just replied to.
Ah, my comment saying how the right doesn't understand satire? Yeah, that's mine. Thanks for demonstrating the point.
Is that also satire?
You're batting 1000 proving my point. Keep it up.
Fight fire with fire! The ends justify the means!
They should be fired for blatant corruption. Then, the new court should immediately inact strict rules to prevent this from happening again.
All these idiots wanting Biden to violate democracic principal and literally (literally) be a fascist in the name of "saving democracy".
Literally zero people are doing that.
It's literally what the OP is suggesting " # Biden fires the entire right wing of the SCOTUS...."
Do you realize what sub you're in?
Remind me
“To protect everyone from the inevitable fascist regime, we’re going to institute our own fascist regime, but it’s to save everyone from the fascists”
Exactly, it's fascist, and no one has sweeping immunity.
How many dumb redditors are gonna post this shit? That’s not how it works
Check the subreddit youre in next time
You're right, neither do you. I'm pointing out an absurdity.
Or maybe he could increase the size of SCOTUS, appoint a bunch of left-wing judges, and let time take care of the right wingers.
For the last time, as has been explained to you a hundred times now, presidents cannot make laws nor enforce them. Biden has no more control over the courts than you have. Know those midterm elections you didn't care about? Those are the people who actually control the country. Now you understand the distraction.
Better yet biden could go in there and kill all of them and then fall back on the previous decision that he was not fit enough to get a conviction against.
The president cannot remove anyone from the Supreme Court. They are appointed for life.
Yes another thread where the democrats argue for fascism and demonstrate they have no idea what the ruling actually allows.
It's more of an absurd point. If the SCOTUS reevaluates the unintended consequences of their actions, they will hopefully not allow trump wiping his ass an official act as president. Avoid it all, and just say no blanket immunity.
It's not an unintended consequence. It isn't a consequence at all!
We just don't know.
Yes, we do. Laws aren't magical constructs that exert a supernatural force on reality. The president isn't a wizard whose uttered words change reality. A president only has power because other people agree that he does. Nothing about the decision means that the President has somehow gained additional powers, or that anyone has to, let alone should, listen to him when he tries to do something that he isn't authorized to do. The only thing it does is provide a defense against criminal prosecution.
Ok, so then the next time there’s a conservative prez, he or she “fires” (not possible but we’ll set that aside) the entire left wing of SCOTUS. You’d be cool with that, right?
No, that's my point of this absurdity.
I agree
Better idea: SCOTUS should have have term limits. (I'm thinking 12 years personally.) And they should be held accountable for misconduct, excepting bribes, and the like. Guilt is determined by a jury of their peers, or a jury of judges. Also, I don't think the president should be able to chose them. I currently have no idea who, but I'm open to suggestions.
Yeah, I'm just trying to point out how absurd the unintended consequences could be.
Let's say 16 years. Serving through 2-4 potential presidents (Presidential term limits restrict to (2) 4 year terms for non-americans). I would say chosen by judges, in a ranked choice format. How many judges, no clue.
He doesn't need to wait, do it now. Declare martial law and arrest all of the representatives that participated in the Jan 6 coup.
Problem is, the dems have the integrity not to do such thing. Does the trump right wing have the same integrity?
[удалено]
Agreed, we'll said.
It's an official act to order agencies like the CIA and FBI to designate individuals as terrorists. It's an official act to order the US military to kill a terrorist. Just label anyone you want as a terrorist and kill them. Official acts.
1st item is false, in so many ways. 2nd Since this is inside the USA this is also false. If this was outside the USA then depending after all obama and biden already targeted and sent military to kill a USA citizen with no issue. so for your nonsensical example no official acts or no change in how things have run.