this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
698 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
2299 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?

"That could well be an official act," Trump lawyer John Sauer says

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 162 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Biden should just send Seal Team 6 to whatever courthouse Trump's hush money trial is at and tell them to sit on the steps. If anyone asks why they're there, just saying "Waiting for the Supreme Court ruling". Maybe park another team on the Supreme Court steps with a sign that says "Waiting for Clarence Thomas."

Biden would not be committing an illegal act. He'd be ordering the teams to sit on the steps and wait. Further orders would only come after the Supreme Court ruling, so Biden would be covered by the very same Presidential immunity that Trump just fought for.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 68 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He pretty much has to, or else Trump will imprison him an execute him in the next 12 months.

I mean shit, if I knew there was a fifty percent chance my neighbor would kidnap and murder me in the next year..... I'd be making contingency plans.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 55 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Unfortunately that's not how Democrats work. For good or for bad they stick to morality (except when it comes to Israel for God knows what reason) and they'll take the "high road" that just so happens to lead off a cliff, but it's the high road so they need to take it even if it means their certain death.

We're a joke, doomed to die for the sake of the moral high ground that we have no right to even assume we have (see previous Isreal comment.)

Edit: but also, from the article, this isn't the actual desire. They already got what they wanted and that was a delay.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I sort of agree, but at some point, Biden has to understand his own self, and his family, and all the colleagues he has worked with in his career are at risk. Trump is seriously escalating a dangerous game that only SCOTUS or Biden can put an end to. Politics is eventually violence, and Biden must know that.

Trump is hiring expensive, smart people, to argue at the last peaceful authority in the country, that he will regain the power of judge jury and executioner. This is fucking chilling.

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

This should help left leaning voters reconsider gun restriction laws since most of them are enforced in blue areas, while red areas are all allowed to have essentially entire armories.

If you live in New York or California, you can't find a gun store within 100 miles of where you live that can only sell extremely restrictive features that would give the most battle hardened Navy Seal issues hitting targets, but in Idaho and Texas there's a gun store on every fucking corner selling easy to shoot highly ergonomic firearms that allow morbidly obese boomers to effortlessly hit the dick off a fly at 1000 meters.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Begging to differ, I'm sitting on my toilet in California and a quick Google shows there's 3 gun stores within 5 miles of me. I'd have to pass the legitimate restrictions (which I easily could) and one of them looks very upscale and expensive, but physical access is not a problem at all.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 2 points 7 months ago

I’m in blue Oregon and we make and sell most of the tannerite people use for shooting.

[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Biden actually has control of the arsenal.

Unless you are a leftist, committed to dying in a revolution, there's no comparison to Biden's position. Clinton and Obama? Maybe

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

He's the commander in chief. Can a local socialist militia stops the tanks?

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why don't you ask the Taliban or NVA?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

About 12x as many dead Taliban as coalition.

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You are correct. How does that change who won in the end?

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Depends on how you determine victory. Their criteria was "invaders go home". For your local militia a better comparison would be asking David Koresh how things worked out.

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
  1. Conservative justices rule that the president is immune from prosecution

  2. President has conservative justices assassinated

  3. President appoints more progressive justices

  4. Progressive justices reverse ruling

Would the president be liable for the prior assassinations at that point?

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No, because he was never prosecuted the first time. Looks like it would be ex post facto, which is illegal in the US.

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

Bonus points if their orders include the phrase "stand back and stand by".

[–] TimeSquirrel@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

While funny to imagine...please let's not. I got a kid to raise, I don't want to raise one in a civil war. I know for sure some of the "SEAL team 6" members wouldn't very much like being turned on government officials, especially if their politics align.

[–] InternetUser2012@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago

To be a seal, you will do what orders you are given. They aren't going to go rogue. The ones that will are the cannon fodder anyways.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 7 months ago

Clarence: “I was watching a porno about this just this morning… I will meet you gentlemen in my chambers in 5 minutes.”

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

That doesn't work because the intimidation is still illegal until the ruling.

[–] evatronic@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Not some random courthouse. Just the steps of the Supreme Court.

Decisions like this should have immediate consequences for those deciding. If you want to make the President above the law, well, enjoy your stay in Gitmo.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Is the President also in charge of the Secret Service?