this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
1222 points (100.0% liked)

World News

46195 readers
3253 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (20 children)

You apparently want him to do illegal things because he can now get away with it?

edit: are basic norms being downvoted here because if republicans are corrupt af, we should not have any standards either?

Edit 2: you're not teaching me anything by telling me the Republicans did something more fucked up first. Do you people honestly think Biden would/could murder political opponents. He obviously won't. He shouldn't. Jfc

Edit 3: yup I'm totally saying let's do nothing about this. You people are brilliant.

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 100 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Apparently "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" is now law.

[–] Beetschnapps@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

So again it’s now a matter of “what is allowed” vs “what is ethical or moral”…

We all joke about the high road of democratic vs gop approaches. But how much does the difference matter?

The hard part is we all get it, Biden is now technically allowed to do whatever. Is that a reason to immediately do the worst possible thing?

Should he now cast aside the law and commit hate crimes purely to prove a point?

The courts will never allow such a performative action, but they’ll allow the creep of fascism.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There are way worse thing biden could do withthis nearly unlimited power

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago

Turns out Nixon was right this whole time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

No, I want him to call their bluff and rise to the challenge of meeting this constitutional crisis. The top court in the land has gone off the rails, and seemingly in collusion with a concerted effort to destroy the rule of law.

Blithely waiting until the election to “let the people defeat Trump” is dereliction. This ruling may be curated in deference for Trump, but unless it is challenged forcefully it will not just go away on January 7th 2024 if Trump loses again. Because when the question of “What are ‘official acts’ v ‘private acts’ then?” comes up, it’ll go right back to the ~~SCotUS~~ the Heritage Foundation and their interpretations.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's a straw man to imply I said we should do "nothing"

[–] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Fucking lol,

This entire thread is people giving you answers that range from reasonable to nuanced, and you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming about how the only options are murder or nothing.

I don't get to pull this quote out very often, so please, feel honored.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's the tolerance paradox. We can tolerate all except the intolerant.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

we should have standards. my standard for a fascist is that he should not exist.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure. Why not? It's not like the next R in office wont do exactly that anyway.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Because morality and norms exist whether those corrupt fucks care about them or not.

[–] DeadTestament@lemmy.world 37 points 10 months ago

The problem is that action must be taken now or those norms could go away forever.

[–] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 10 points 10 months ago

Not for long they don't

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You can't use norms and morality to defeat fascists

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But they're not illegal things according to the highest court in the nation. That's the entire point.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

That doesn't matter. I understand that premise and yet it still doesn't matter

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

If it was as unimportant as you think it is, it wouldn't be getting ruled on by SCOTUS. It absolutely does matter, especially with groups like the right who continually challenge laws to find ways to loosen or completely negate them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 10 months ago

When the other guy is willing to knife you its no time to stick to the rules of debate.

[–] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago

The Judiciary has decided that the Executive must not be beholden to neither the Legislative nor the Judiciary. This is terrible, because it breaks the separation of powers. Now, if only the Executive wasn't beholden to any of the other powers to force the Judiciary to go back to reason... Oh, wait.

Irony aside: no, this isn't a matter of not having standards, this is a matter of making sure that democracy is capable of perpetuating itself. If the organism gets infected by a virus that intends to mutate the whole thing into a degenerated parody of itself, it must send its antibodies. Not doing so means letting the last line of defense fall all by itself, which is even against the very spirit of the law.

[–] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 12 points 10 months ago

Not illegal anymore bucko

[–] lone_faerie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We know for a fact Trump will use this to abuse his power as much as possible. The high road isn't sitting down and taking it, it's using the power that was just handed to you to do something about it. There practically is no such thing as "illegal" now when it comes to the president. Biden doesn't need to commit murder to make a difference. He could, for example, expand the Supreme Court so the conservatives no longer have the advantage, or cancel student debt to get more supporters, or do anything other than cry about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Squirrel@thelemmy.club 10 points 10 months ago

He needs to act to safeguard our democracy, because others will not have the same hangups in doing the opposite. Acting with the power they have granted him in order to prevent future issues is not corruption.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The precedent shouldn't be "they go low, we go high", but "play stupid games, win stupid prizes". He probably wouldn't do anything because the aforementioned issue, but should just send an assassination squad on the 6 supreme court judges alongside with other politicians.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“Illegal” my left asshole.

[–] kevindqc@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How many assholes do you have?

[–] ArmoredThirteen@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thirteen of them and they're all well guarded. How many do you have??

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The only thing you're interested in is showing how much of a bigger person you are on the internet. What we're doing is speaking about all the ways this is fucked up and hypotheticals about how it can go wrong. For a lot of us, this isn't new. I my political life time alone, I saw 8 years of rights being eroded by the Bush II administration with no real push back and once Obama got in under the promise of fixing things, a whole lot of inaction on rolling back any of the rights violations.

The powers that be are taking advantage of how distributed the responsibilities of government are. If it's so easy to lose rights, why is it so hard to gain them back. There's always someone else to point at for why that is the case. In Nazi Germany, that was called The Banality of Evil. I see that everyday when some injustice is hand waved away as being too ingrained to do anything about. Police Reform? Too hard. Effective Climate Action? It would hurt the economy. The SC is eroding our rights? Have to wait for someone to die or retired(lol).

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (24 children)

I’ve given up on this crowd. You didn’t say do nothing.

This crowd only understands their echo chamber. Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.

In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 11 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

In another post I challenged them to give one specific thing Biden can/should do to fix this. They couldn’t even come up with one item.

Nice to run into you again, still posting this tired line huh? And you're lying, because not only did I provide specifics, so did multiple other people (there's more than just these, I've seen a ton). It seems that you might be caught in some sort of personal echo chamber.

Is there a reason you stop responding to people once they provide specifics?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're wasting your time, Best Friend.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I will consider this harassment and report you if you do this again

[–] PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago
  1. Lemmy is a rather small community by comparrison. I'm bound to run into you frequently.

  2. I don't care what you do. It has no impact on me.

  3. If it truly bothered you, you would block me. It's ridiculously easy.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

would you care to elaborate on what you believe should be done about this?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Given that I'm a programmer who hasn't even had time to think about it I wouldn't know.

Things that should not be done about it: murder. I can't tell if the people suggesting that are all joking or not, but it's sort of shocking if anyone is being serious.

load more comments (2 replies)