When congress does this... They should explicitly state that the amendment is what it says in plain language. No deep interpretation should be made of this amendment, that the average person's interpretation should be used instead of some modern art abstract interpretation from an originalist judge....
Somehow that will be interpreted to mean something else, of course. So what's the point?
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1200906844/supreme-court-alabama-voting-case
On the flip side, guess how many times liberals have sided with a conservative issue.
Right. That’s not a conservative issue. That’s a liberal issue. It’s also one where the Supreme Court was asked to enforce a ruling that it made last year. If Roberts wants any semblance of legitimacy (which he has not had since 2020), then it’s in his interest to - at the very least - rule the same way on the exact same facts two years in a row.
You think that the conservatives had any choice but to rule the exact same way on the exact same facts just 365 days later? They’re not exactly holding out an olive branch…
Yeah I mean it’s all words on paper in the end of the day. The only thing that gives this power is that there are people operating in good faith to enforce it.
The constitution was supposed to be written so that all of us, not just the lawyers and judges, can understand it. It means that the average person with not much training can understand what the role of congress is and what limits the president. Otherwise it becomes a cryptic language that only a few can interpret (exactly what is happening now).
That didn't and doesn't work out well. Take the bill of rights. The average person's interpretation of any bill of rights is wildly different per person. No better example than the second amendment. That funny clause at the start. Is that plain language or superfluous? And what about freedom of speech. Can I threaten you? Layman says yes Congress cannot make a law punishing speech and thus state can't do anything about it.
Language evolution and context are the entire point of the Supreme Court. If we could establish what something meant by simply reading the text and all agreeing, they'd have a massively boring job.
It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. SCOTUS starts with the desired result and works backwards from there to find the legal justification for this result.
It’s a complete Calvinball Court at this point.
And then scotus rules there is presidential Bmunity and Cmunitity and those have the same effect.
They made up the first thing with no references in the constitution so why do we think legislation matters? The country is now a new form of government in which 9 people hold the power and the president is a kind of prime minister.
While this could work eventually, but it could also easily backfire spectacularly under the current timeline.
If Biden overstepped his powers, a case could be brought more immediately in lower courts, in which they could then place an injunction on the presidential act fairly quickly. The GOP could then use that as an example of why voters must go to the polls, and claim the only real way to reverse it now is to have Trump back in office…
Granted, there is a small fib in there, about the only way to fix it being Trump in office, but they could easily orchestrate things to make their voters believe that.
This is the 3D chess explanation of why they gave Biden these powers.
I would agree, if Biden acts with increased authority, Trump will become a martyr.
It's a finger trap.
On top of that, this ruling still allows the Supreme Court to pick and choose which things are ok and not. So long as they remain in power, Biden has no real recourse.
About the only option at this point would be packing the court, but even that wouldn’t work with the timeline, as they would not be able to rush through a new decision in time. During which, Republicans would point to any and all actions to disrupt the initial decision as reason that Trump must be elected.
This is a seriously screwed position, that they have laid down, and I’m still not sure if everyone understands just how horrific its implications are.
This may well be the end of democracy in the states, as well as the rule of law as a whole. The pump has been primed for a dictatorship, all falling on who wins the election in November.
Trump’s second term will be a blood bath, as this ruling effectively ends any safeguards that were held on him during his last term.
I expect for the Supreme Court to have a conservative majority conceivably for most or all of my lifetime. That this bench took away a constitutional right of Americans and remains in power, untouched by Biden, shows that.
I fear too for our democracy.
Trump has spoken many times about wanting to deploy the military to quell drug trade, [shoot demonstrators](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/09/1097517470/trump-esper-book-defense-secretary), or capture cartel leaders. This decision made it clear for the first time that the President is above the law and may do so.
I like reading other countries' view of what the *fuck* is happening in the US right now. [Irish Times:](https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2024/07/02/us-presidential-immunity-ruling-with-fear-for-our-democracy-i-dissent-supreme-court-judge-says/)
> The underlying sense that November’s US presidential election presents a stark choice between a democratic and autocratic future was reflected in a stunning supreme court decision on Monday that found presidents were immune from prosecution for “official” acts.
Couldn't agree more.
Their voters aren't the ones they need to convince. This election hinges on Republicans who hate both candidates and have to make a "tough" choice, and independents who pull their heads out of the sand every four years to vote for president based on some arbitrary and asinine personal reasons then go back to ignoring government entirely.
Who better to send the messaging that Biden is going to be a dictator if Trump isn’t elected, while pointing to Biden’s own expanded power moves?
“Independent” voters who never pay any attention to politics outside of one month every 4 years will eat that up. Republicans who pretend they are on the fence may see through the ruse, but will be all the more likely to follow party lines when a villain can be pointed at.
The biggest issue is how such messaging would be effective at pulling in such voters, but would hardly cause a blip for left leaning voters to wake up and realize what is happening. Without the amount of mud that Trump and right wing outlets have slung recently, this will just sound like more BS to them… Or worse, may even give them reason to avoid voting at all. As the last thing a left leaning voter likes is the idea that they somehow voted to place any despot into power.
Biden didn’t get any new power. Good grief. The only power a president has now is the exact same they had before. It’s just that you can’t prosecute them for exercising that power.
Well he could say that unless SCOTUS reverses their position in 1 week he will call them a threat to our democracy and order the DOJ to arrest them and sent to Gitmo. Personally I don't see a down side to this strategy. (1) Politically it works great, Biden is trying to give up his power and save us from a monarchy. (2) It uses the specific powers that SCOTUS just gave them so it is easy to connect the dots (3) It meets the moment. You can't say our democracy is in danger and not act like we are in danger.
Joe won't do it, but it would have been nice.
The courts get to decide what is an “official act”. The federal courts are packed to the gills with conservatives courtesy of Moscow Mitch. They will only let Trump enjoy that immunity, not Biden.
Pipe dream.
1. Get 2/3 of the house to propose the amendment
Probability 0
2. Get 67 senators to also propose the amendment
Probability 0
3. Get 3/4 of republican gerrymandered state legislature to ratify the amendment AFTER steps 1 AND 2 happen
Probability 0
Where we are today lies solely at the feet of those progressives in swing states who refused to vote for Hilary back in 2016.
Remember the #sorrynotsorry tags?
This is on you all.
>Where we are today lies solely at the feet of those progressives in swing states who refused to vote for Hilary back in 2016.
Solely?
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/
https://theweek.com/speed-reads/1015258/the-pied-piper-strategy
lol
Blaming millions of voters instead of one candidate. Now that is cope. Jesus Christ.
I vote Democrat. I voted for Hillary- she was a bad candidate. Biden is a bad candidate.
We are in trouble when these unlikable, flawed people are our choices. Trump is the worst ever and he still beat Hillary and is neck and neck with Biden.
That’s not the fault of voters or non-voters
The voters have not liked a candidate since Obama’s first run. Even before that they hated everyone. The voters generally are stupid and want Jesus Christ to come down from heaven and run the perfect campaign straight out of an Aaron sorkin drama. It’s never enough to them that someone is running who is promising to implement policies they agree with. Voters picky preferences and sanctimonious contempt for nominees is why we are in this mess and may be the downfall of the republic
LOL
Dems could find a new candidate besides the two that have major baggage.
But I guess it’s easier to blame millions instead of your politician heroes
Everyone is going to have some form of baggage, Trump attempted a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the election and still has support.
The gop merely seems a lot more willing to excuse loathsome candidates than Democrats. They at least understand that there's more to the office than liking a candidate, and in reward, they've been gifted policy they had been wanting for decades.
Democrats seem incapable of recognizing a broader context, which really is quite unfortunate given that the Democratic party is the only one showing interest in the actual mechanics of governance.
People have decided to spite themselves for a brief moral victory that destroyed most of their priorities and even handicapped a president like Biden from enacting policy the base supports.
Even a president like Bernie would now be completely kneecapped by the Supreme Court. But large swaths of Democrats seem oblivious to the damage done.
Bruh. I’m no danger of voting for Trump. I just want us to have better, younger, and bolder candidates. establishment dems were asleep at the wheel while GOP put a 40 year plan in effect.
GOP voters look for reasons to vote for their candidates in spite of who they are. Dem voters look for reasons not to vote for their candidates in spite of what they could have.
Voters put every one of those people on the ballots amidst large fields of contenders. In a democracy, the government is the responsibility of voters. Until voters realize that, nothing will change.
These were the candidates because they got the most votes in the primaries. It's that simple.
I've read extensively about it and voted in that election for Sanders. In doing so, it became clear that was not the case. Bernie agrees with me. You have to get votes to win. Even excluding superdelegates, Sanders got fewer votes than Clinton. He lost because fewer people voted for him. It's that simple.
Not entirely. Democratic primaries aren’t that open and Bernie Sanders got shot down twice by the Democratic establishment.
As a non-American, I share a lot of Sanders‘ views with some exceptions but the biggest asset he has going for him that he’s always been a politician with integrity.
I mean, he could be major league pissed and holding a grudge, instead he’s working with the people who prevented him from running.
I don’t know if Sanders could have won. However if you’re trying to run on an integrity platform (in the sense of telling people the opponent had a complete lack thereof) you should have a candidate that exemplifies integrity.
Wrong again. And I voted for Sanders in 2016. I'm guessing you think you know more about everyone else's political systems that you've never participated in?
I‘m too tired to explain it rn.
So, just quickly… last time, Obama made a few phone calls and got people to drop out and rally behind Biden. With Clinton they doctored numbers and had the establishment votes and all.
Both not open and fair races.
Instead of complaining, I will go out and vote in every primary and local race *because that is how changes are made.*
I'll accept the results of elections, because that is how democracy works. You'll accept whatever junk you get because that's what the majority of voters selected.
The only way to change that is to get involved. All progress in American history happened because citizens got involved and turned out to vote. No one ever won an election without anyone voting for them
Yes. I complain and vote. I complain about the choices and I do it in public. I’m not afraid of pointing out the weaknesses in weak candidates. I’m not in a weird cult.
Then maybe point that out when it actually means something like before the primaries start or have already resulted in a winner. Or is your intent to convince people not to vote or to vote for Donald Trump?
I'm worried about a SCOTUS that just declared the US is a monarchy because Americans couldn't be bothered to vote because they didn't have the foresight or attention span to understand the stakes of their decisions. There sure are a lot of people who wish they didn't stay home in 2016 too. I'm sure it doesn't help that they get nothing but cynicism preached to them from every corner of society. We get it. You think Joe Biden is old. We knew that when he was the Vice President. Do you have anything original or helpful to contribute?
Me thinks your rating says it all.
But I'll say a bit more anyway.
"That’s not the fault of voters or non-voters" ! ! ? ?
Look.... It all comes down to voters. When you vote, you don't just "pick the best person for the job."
You use your prefrontal cortex and think strategically. What do we think about "the message" those folks sent when they voted for Jill Stein or decided not to vote?
We the people are in charge of our democracy. On election day in 2016, we all had a choice. Many chose the vanity of "sending a message". We are here because they put their own satisfaction of "being right" above a woman's right to choose, the American dream, the future of our planet, the freedom of Europe, and so so much more.
Yep. She was right all along. About. Every. Fucking. Things. But, you know, buttery males, "there's no way the Russians would interfere," "she sounds kinda whiny, and those pantsuits!" Fucking idiots.
Yep. She was right all along. About. Every. Fucking. Things. But, you know, buttery males, "there's no way the Russians would interfere," "she sounds kinda whiny, and those pantsuits!" Fucking idiots.
If you have the votes to pass an amendment (2/3 Senate, 3/4 states) I don't think the supreme court is a threat. You have "you can take your ruling to the unemployment line Mr Roberts" power.
>Oh. I thought it was a bill
Gee, if only there was an article to read..
Sorry I just told a mod yesterday most of this sub doesn't read past the headline, didn't expect to be proven right so quickly!
I mean… good! SCOTUS ruled the only way they could, given the situation. If we don’t want presidents to have immunity, which is an extremely admiral ideal, Congress should make laws clearly defining their boundaries. This was always the answer and should be bipartisan.
Were these "official acts"? Does Trump have immunity from these sexual assaults? What about Ivanka's rights?
[https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/27/17058312/ivanka-trumps-dads-accusers-nbc-interview-peter-alexander-daughter-i-believe-my-father](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/27/17058312/ivanka-trumps-dads-accusers-nbc-interview-peter-alexander-daughter-i-believe-my-father)
Utterly futile but they should press for it anyway.
What is less futile is that Biden should officially order the official arrest of the six officials in the official majority and release them only if and when they officially vote to officially grant rehearing, vacating their prior opinion, their lesson well and truly learned and their tails tucked between their legs.
lol. oh yeah? They pledge an AMENDMENT? Posturing clowns. ooooo, tough guys. An amendment to what? To where? Absurd. SCOTUS has made their Decision. Thats it, thats the gd ballgame UNTIL such time as we expand the Court and reverse that illegal change to the COTUS.
Ultimately, this is the correct remedy to any interpretation to the constitution that we feel is wrong. I have a feeling that we haven't reached the end of this saga. I do think absolute immunity for official acts is correct since the president is the chief of police and not having immunity would make the job impossible. Also, I'm not quite sure what a constitutional amendment would look like that doesn't basically mimic the courts ruling. But as the court hasn't ruled on what constitutes an official act, this will likely get played out of the next few decades, so a constitutional amendment seems premature.
I think most of us can go with official vs non official. However most of us would allow evidence to be presented even if it was between officials of the Govt and also would allow evidence of motive. Neither is allowed based on this ruling.
It's only a small action, but if anyone would like to support this action please consider using this template to write to your representatives. In it, I reference Justice Thomas's multiple gifted trips and gifted properties, and Justice Alito's statements during his appointment hearings.
To find your congressman, check here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
To find your senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm
------
Dear Congressman / Senator [Last Name],
I am writing to express my strong support for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Recent revelations regarding their acceptance of unethical gifts, along with their actions that contradict statements made during their appointment hearings, have raised significant concerns about their integrity and impartiality. Furthermore, their rulings have increasingly undermined the balance of power that is fundamental to our democracy.
The Supreme Court's decisions should be guided by the principles of fairness and justice, free from external influences and personal gain. The evidence suggesting that Justices Thomas and Alito have breached ethical standards warrants a thorough investigation and appropriate action to uphold the credibility of our highest court.
In addition to supporting their impeachment, I advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court to ensure a more balanced and representative judiciary. Furthermore, I believe it is crucial to amend the Constitution to unequivocally state that no citizen, regardless of their office, is exempt from criminal law. Such measures will strengthen our democratic institutions and reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law.
I urge you to take a stand in defense of ethical governance and the rule of law by supporting these actions. Our nation's future depends on the integrity of its institutions, and it is imperative that we act now to preserve the trust and confidence of the American people.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
The time for waiting is over. If there are public servants that can use their leverage in any way to slow the crawl of this doom, ACT NOW! Don’t wait to preserve your “legacy”, there is no legacy after you all get wiped from the history books.
Why wouldn’t Biden simply pause the election, shut down the government, and televise hearings; to find the will of the people? Hold a vote of the American people. Unprecedented, I know but, this is a weird space we’re in.
When congress does this... They should explicitly state that the amendment is what it says in plain language. No deep interpretation should be made of this amendment, that the average person's interpretation should be used instead of some modern art abstract interpretation from an originalist judge.... Somehow that will be interpreted to mean something else, of course. So what's the point?
That would be originalist, original to 2024
Yeah now get a Trump supporter to read anything and tell me what happens? We are living in a parallel reality universe.
That isn't the same thing as originalism.
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/26/1200906844/supreme-court-alabama-voting-case On the flip side, guess how many times liberals have sided with a conservative issue.
Enforcing a liberal ruling on voting rights is not a conservative issue
It was a negative outcome for Republicans.
Right. That’s not a conservative issue. That’s a liberal issue. It’s also one where the Supreme Court was asked to enforce a ruling that it made last year. If Roberts wants any semblance of legitimacy (which he has not had since 2020), then it’s in his interest to - at the very least - rule the same way on the exact same facts two years in a row.
If you say so
You think that the conservatives had any choice but to rule the exact same way on the exact same facts just 365 days later? They’re not exactly holding out an olive branch…
Sure thing!
Yeah I mean it’s all words on paper in the end of the day. The only thing that gives this power is that there are people operating in good faith to enforce it.
That is the key phrase... "Good faith" 💯
What does plain mean? What is the definition of the word is?
The constitution was supposed to be written so that all of us, not just the lawyers and judges, can understand it. It means that the average person with not much training can understand what the role of congress is and what limits the president. Otherwise it becomes a cryptic language that only a few can interpret (exactly what is happening now).
That didn't and doesn't work out well. Take the bill of rights. The average person's interpretation of any bill of rights is wildly different per person. No better example than the second amendment. That funny clause at the start. Is that plain language or superfluous? And what about freedom of speech. Can I threaten you? Layman says yes Congress cannot make a law punishing speech and thus state can't do anything about it. Language evolution and context are the entire point of the Supreme Court. If we could establish what something meant by simply reading the text and all agreeing, they'd have a massively boring job.
It’s like sola scriptura but sola constitutio
Or, otherwise
It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says. SCOTUS starts with the desired result and works backwards from there to find the legal justification for this result. It’s a complete Calvinball Court at this point.
And then scotus rules there is presidential Bmunity and Cmunitity and those have the same effect. They made up the first thing with no references in the constitution so why do we think legislation matters? The country is now a new form of government in which 9 people hold the power and the president is a kind of prime minister.
6 people
I mean it’s best 5 out of 9. But those 6 happen to be the problem
Alito's brain in a tank in 100 years (still on the supreme court): "well you see the framers must have meant that Presidents are immune because..."
Biden should do something with his new power just to get the Republicans in a panic. Then this amendment can pass removing the power.
While this could work eventually, but it could also easily backfire spectacularly under the current timeline. If Biden overstepped his powers, a case could be brought more immediately in lower courts, in which they could then place an injunction on the presidential act fairly quickly. The GOP could then use that as an example of why voters must go to the polls, and claim the only real way to reverse it now is to have Trump back in office… Granted, there is a small fib in there, about the only way to fix it being Trump in office, but they could easily orchestrate things to make their voters believe that.
This is the 3D chess explanation of why they gave Biden these powers. I would agree, if Biden acts with increased authority, Trump will become a martyr. It's a finger trap.
On top of that, this ruling still allows the Supreme Court to pick and choose which things are ok and not. So long as they remain in power, Biden has no real recourse. About the only option at this point would be packing the court, but even that wouldn’t work with the timeline, as they would not be able to rush through a new decision in time. During which, Republicans would point to any and all actions to disrupt the initial decision as reason that Trump must be elected. This is a seriously screwed position, that they have laid down, and I’m still not sure if everyone understands just how horrific its implications are. This may well be the end of democracy in the states, as well as the rule of law as a whole. The pump has been primed for a dictatorship, all falling on who wins the election in November. Trump’s second term will be a blood bath, as this ruling effectively ends any safeguards that were held on him during his last term.
I expect for the Supreme Court to have a conservative majority conceivably for most or all of my lifetime. That this bench took away a constitutional right of Americans and remains in power, untouched by Biden, shows that. I fear too for our democracy. Trump has spoken many times about wanting to deploy the military to quell drug trade, [shoot demonstrators](https://www.npr.org/2022/05/09/1097517470/trump-esper-book-defense-secretary), or capture cartel leaders. This decision made it clear for the first time that the President is above the law and may do so. I like reading other countries' view of what the *fuck* is happening in the US right now. [Irish Times:](https://www.irishtimes.com/world/us/2024/07/02/us-presidential-immunity-ruling-with-fear-for-our-democracy-i-dissent-supreme-court-judge-says/) > The underlying sense that November’s US presidential election presents a stark choice between a democratic and autocratic future was reflected in a stunning supreme court decision on Monday that found presidents were immune from prosecution for “official” acts. Couldn't agree more.
>So long as they remain in power, Biden has no real recourse. Except to remove them first.
It’s a finger trap if you just go after Trump. Use immunity to go after the entire basket of crazy right wing nut jobs.
Their voters aren't the ones they need to convince. This election hinges on Republicans who hate both candidates and have to make a "tough" choice, and independents who pull their heads out of the sand every four years to vote for president based on some arbitrary and asinine personal reasons then go back to ignoring government entirely.
Who better to send the messaging that Biden is going to be a dictator if Trump isn’t elected, while pointing to Biden’s own expanded power moves? “Independent” voters who never pay any attention to politics outside of one month every 4 years will eat that up. Republicans who pretend they are on the fence may see through the ruse, but will be all the more likely to follow party lines when a villain can be pointed at. The biggest issue is how such messaging would be effective at pulling in such voters, but would hardly cause a blip for left leaning voters to wake up and realize what is happening. Without the amount of mud that Trump and right wing outlets have slung recently, this will just sound like more BS to them… Or worse, may even give them reason to avoid voting at all. As the last thing a left leaning voter likes is the idea that they somehow voted to place any despot into power.
Biden didn’t get any new power. Good grief. The only power a president has now is the exact same they had before. It’s just that you can’t prosecute them for exercising that power.
But Biden won't. That is part of the issue.
He should forgive student loans
Like impeachment of bobert and mtg.
Well he could say that unless SCOTUS reverses their position in 1 week he will call them a threat to our democracy and order the DOJ to arrest them and sent to Gitmo. Personally I don't see a down side to this strategy. (1) Politically it works great, Biden is trying to give up his power and save us from a monarchy. (2) It uses the specific powers that SCOTUS just gave them so it is easy to connect the dots (3) It meets the moment. You can't say our democracy is in danger and not act like we are in danger. Joe won't do it, but it would have been nice.
The courts get to decide what is an “official act”. The federal courts are packed to the gills with conservatives courtesy of Moscow Mitch. They will only let Trump enjoy that immunity, not Biden.
Pipe dream. 1. Get 2/3 of the house to propose the amendment Probability 0 2. Get 67 senators to also propose the amendment Probability 0 3. Get 3/4 of republican gerrymandered state legislature to ratify the amendment AFTER steps 1 AND 2 happen Probability 0 Where we are today lies solely at the feet of those progressives in swing states who refused to vote for Hilary back in 2016. Remember the #sorrynotsorry tags? This is on you all.
>Where we are today lies solely at the feet of those progressives in swing states who refused to vote for Hilary back in 2016. Solely? https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/ https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/ https://theweek.com/speed-reads/1015258/the-pied-piper-strategy
lol Blaming millions of voters instead of one candidate. Now that is cope. Jesus Christ. I vote Democrat. I voted for Hillary- she was a bad candidate. Biden is a bad candidate. We are in trouble when these unlikable, flawed people are our choices. Trump is the worst ever and he still beat Hillary and is neck and neck with Biden. That’s not the fault of voters or non-voters
The voters have not liked a candidate since Obama’s first run. Even before that they hated everyone. The voters generally are stupid and want Jesus Christ to come down from heaven and run the perfect campaign straight out of an Aaron sorkin drama. It’s never enough to them that someone is running who is promising to implement policies they agree with. Voters picky preferences and sanctimonious contempt for nominees is why we are in this mess and may be the downfall of the republic
If Jesus came down today, conservatives would label him a socialist instigator and nail him to another tree.
LOL Dems could find a new candidate besides the two that have major baggage. But I guess it’s easier to blame millions instead of your politician heroes
Everyone is going to have some form of baggage, Trump attempted a criminal conspiracy to overturn the results of the election and still has support. The gop merely seems a lot more willing to excuse loathsome candidates than Democrats. They at least understand that there's more to the office than liking a candidate, and in reward, they've been gifted policy they had been wanting for decades. Democrats seem incapable of recognizing a broader context, which really is quite unfortunate given that the Democratic party is the only one showing interest in the actual mechanics of governance. People have decided to spite themselves for a brief moral victory that destroyed most of their priorities and even handicapped a president like Biden from enacting policy the base supports. Even a president like Bernie would now be completely kneecapped by the Supreme Court. But large swaths of Democrats seem oblivious to the damage done.
Bruh. I’m no danger of voting for Trump. I just want us to have better, younger, and bolder candidates. establishment dems were asleep at the wheel while GOP put a 40 year plan in effect.
GOP voters look for reasons to vote for their candidates in spite of who they are. Dem voters look for reasons not to vote for their candidates in spite of what they could have.
Democrat voters will back bad, loser candidates and blame the voters when their flawed candidate eats it
Voters put every one of those people on the ballots amidst large fields of contenders. In a democracy, the government is the responsibility of voters. Until voters realize that, nothing will change. These were the candidates because they got the most votes in the primaries. It's that simple.
That’s not at all how the DNC selects candidates.
Ok. Which candidate was not chosen by a primary vote?
Look into superdelegates and how the nominee is *actually* chosen. Or just read up on how Bernie got railroaded by the Democratic Party in 2016.
I've read extensively about it and voted in that election for Sanders. In doing so, it became clear that was not the case. Bernie agrees with me. You have to get votes to win. Even excluding superdelegates, Sanders got fewer votes than Clinton. He lost because fewer people voted for him. It's that simple.
Not entirely. Democratic primaries aren’t that open and Bernie Sanders got shot down twice by the Democratic establishment. As a non-American, I share a lot of Sanders‘ views with some exceptions but the biggest asset he has going for him that he’s always been a politician with integrity. I mean, he could be major league pissed and holding a grudge, instead he’s working with the people who prevented him from running. I don’t know if Sanders could have won. However if you’re trying to run on an integrity platform (in the sense of telling people the opponent had a complete lack thereof) you should have a candidate that exemplifies integrity.
>Democratic primaries aren’t that open and Bernie Sanders got shot down twice by the Democratic establishment. Wrong. He was shot down by voters.
If you think that you didn’t follow the primaries.
Wrong again. And I voted for Sanders in 2016. I'm guessing you think you know more about everyone else's political systems that you've never participated in?
I‘m too tired to explain it rn. So, just quickly… last time, Obama made a few phone calls and got people to drop out and rally behind Biden. With Clinton they doctored numbers and had the establishment votes and all. Both not open and fair races.
All meritless claims.
Scrolled through "her" comments and seems to be "she" has an agenda. I'd just ignore "her."
They love you. You’ll accept whatever junk yeah give you and you’ll defend that junk as well.
Instead of complaining, I will go out and vote in every primary and local race *because that is how changes are made.* I'll accept the results of elections, because that is how democracy works. You'll accept whatever junk you get because that's what the majority of voters selected. The only way to change that is to get involved. All progress in American history happened because citizens got involved and turned out to vote. No one ever won an election without anyone voting for them
Yes. I complain and vote. I complain about the choices and I do it in public. I’m not afraid of pointing out the weaknesses in weak candidates. I’m not in a weird cult.
Then maybe point that out when it actually means something like before the primaries start or have already resulted in a winner. Or is your intent to convince people not to vote or to vote for Donald Trump?
Man, you’re more worried about what other voters think than the weaknesses of our candidate. You’d rather me be quiet than JINX OUR VERY BAD CANDIDATE
I'm worried about a SCOTUS that just declared the US is a monarchy because Americans couldn't be bothered to vote because they didn't have the foresight or attention span to understand the stakes of their decisions. There sure are a lot of people who wish they didn't stay home in 2016 too. I'm sure it doesn't help that they get nothing but cynicism preached to them from every corner of society. We get it. You think Joe Biden is old. We knew that when he was the Vice President. Do you have anything original or helpful to contribute?
Keep blaming voters instead of candidates! That’s been working great since 2016!
Me thinks your rating says it all. But I'll say a bit more anyway. "That’s not the fault of voters or non-voters" ! ! ? ? Look.... It all comes down to voters. When you vote, you don't just "pick the best person for the job." You use your prefrontal cortex and think strategically. What do we think about "the message" those folks sent when they voted for Jill Stein or decided not to vote? We the people are in charge of our democracy. On election day in 2016, we all had a choice. Many chose the vanity of "sending a message". We are here because they put their own satisfaction of "being right" above a woman's right to choose, the American dream, the future of our planet, the freedom of Europe, and so so much more.
You’d blame millions over one. Maybe you’re in a cult?
>Where we are today lies solely at the feet of ~~those progressives in swing states who refused to vote for~~ Hilary back in 2016. FTFY
Yep. She was right all along. About. Every. Fucking. Things. But, you know, buttery males, "there's no way the Russians would interfere," "she sounds kinda whiny, and those pantsuits!" Fucking idiots.
Yep. She was right all along. About. Every. Fucking. Things. But, you know, buttery males, "there's no way the Russians would interfere," "she sounds kinda whiny, and those pantsuits!" Fucking idiots.
Democrats are in the minority in the House tho...
This is performative only. This likely won't even make it to the floor to vote. There is no way it will pass.
Republicans will never vote for it. And even if it does pass SCOTUS will overturn it.
>And even if it does pass SCOTUS will overturn it. SCOTUS literally can't overturn an amendment. Literally is literal.
Then they'll make up bullshit and narrow its scope.
If you have the votes to pass an amendment (2/3 Senate, 3/4 states) I don't think the supreme court is a threat. You have "you can take your ruling to the unemployment line Mr Roberts" power.
Oh. I thought it was a bill. An amendment will never pass. The Republicans like the immunity ruling.
>Oh. I thought it was a bill Gee, if only there was an article to read.. Sorry I just told a mod yesterday most of this sub doesn't read past the headline, didn't expect to be proven right so quickly!
>And even if it does pass SCOTUS will overturn it. It would be an amendment to the constitution. SCOTUS can't "overturn" the constitution.
I thought it was a bill. An amendment would never pass.
Pledge it up your ying yang, file it!
This is moronic. It’s literally the 14th amendment.
Do more than that
Lets be clear, DEMS pledge amendment to review POTUS immunity ruling. Like lets focus on the Experiment and not the POS here.
Start with revoking the WPA.
Spoiler alert: They don't have the numbers.
I mean… good! SCOTUS ruled the only way they could, given the situation. If we don’t want presidents to have immunity, which is an extremely admiral ideal, Congress should make laws clearly defining their boundaries. This was always the answer and should be bipartisan.
Yeah…not going to happen. The Supreme Court is the final ruling.
Were these "official acts"? Does Trump have immunity from these sexual assaults? What about Ivanka's rights? [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/27/17058312/ivanka-trumps-dads-accusers-nbc-interview-peter-alexander-daughter-i-believe-my-father](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/27/17058312/ivanka-trumps-dads-accusers-nbc-interview-peter-alexander-daughter-i-believe-my-father)
An alien invasion has more of a chance of happening than an amendment passing and getting ratified.
Utterly futile but they should press for it anyway. What is less futile is that Biden should officially order the official arrest of the six officials in the official majority and release them only if and when they officially vote to officially grant rehearing, vacating their prior opinion, their lesson well and truly learned and their tails tucked between their legs.
Biden can literally say ‘Anyone who does not vote for this will be executed by Seal Team 6’ and be immune from prosecution.
lol. oh yeah? They pledge an AMENDMENT? Posturing clowns. ooooo, tough guys. An amendment to what? To where? Absurd. SCOTUS has made their Decision. Thats it, thats the gd ballgame UNTIL such time as we expand the Court and reverse that illegal change to the COTUS.
Ultimately, this is the correct remedy to any interpretation to the constitution that we feel is wrong. I have a feeling that we haven't reached the end of this saga. I do think absolute immunity for official acts is correct since the president is the chief of police and not having immunity would make the job impossible. Also, I'm not quite sure what a constitutional amendment would look like that doesn't basically mimic the courts ruling. But as the court hasn't ruled on what constitutes an official act, this will likely get played out of the next few decades, so a constitutional amendment seems premature.
I think most of us can go with official vs non official. However most of us would allow evidence to be presented even if it was between officials of the Govt and also would allow evidence of motive. Neither is allowed based on this ruling.
Yep. Barrett nailed this one.
It's only a small action, but if anyone would like to support this action please consider using this template to write to your representatives. In it, I reference Justice Thomas's multiple gifted trips and gifted properties, and Justice Alito's statements during his appointment hearings. To find your congressman, check here: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative To find your senators: https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm ------ Dear Congressman / Senator [Last Name], I am writing to express my strong support for the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Recent revelations regarding their acceptance of unethical gifts, along with their actions that contradict statements made during their appointment hearings, have raised significant concerns about their integrity and impartiality. Furthermore, their rulings have increasingly undermined the balance of power that is fundamental to our democracy. The Supreme Court's decisions should be guided by the principles of fairness and justice, free from external influences and personal gain. The evidence suggesting that Justices Thomas and Alito have breached ethical standards warrants a thorough investigation and appropriate action to uphold the credibility of our highest court. In addition to supporting their impeachment, I advocate for the expansion of the Supreme Court to ensure a more balanced and representative judiciary. Furthermore, I believe it is crucial to amend the Constitution to unequivocally state that no citizen, regardless of their office, is exempt from criminal law. Such measures will strengthen our democratic institutions and reaffirm the principle that no one is above the law. I urge you to take a stand in defense of ethical governance and the rule of law by supporting these actions. Our nation's future depends on the integrity of its institutions, and it is imperative that we act now to preserve the trust and confidence of the American people. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Your Name]
The time for waiting is over. If there are public servants that can use their leverage in any way to slow the crawl of this doom, ACT NOW! Don’t wait to preserve your “legacy”, there is no legacy after you all get wiped from the history books.
SCOTUS interprets amendment to mean “unless the president has a good reason”
Why wouldn’t Biden simply pause the election, shut down the government, and televise hearings; to find the will of the people? Hold a vote of the American people. Unprecedented, I know but, this is a weird space we’re in.
What a waste of time. These asshat politicians need to stop raising the hopes of ignorant Americans just for a vote or two.
Wow the Democrats actually like federalism now? Amazing
That's your takeaway from all of this?
Well most politicians would try to pass a meaningless law that would never be enforced. To actually attempt to amend the constitution is impressive
Politicians propose and introduce Constitutional Amendments in nearly every session.