this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
506 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19136 readers
3591 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
 

This stupid topic again

But sure

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 78 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I preferred not to vote for Biden but he turned out to be a good president.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 3 months ago (2 children)

He turned out to be a decent president, except for the massive, glaring failure to build any sort of meaningful bulwark against fascism. He had, like, the absolute best justification and mandate to aggressively crack down on the neofascists with Jan 6, but he pussyfooted around and dragged his feet on fucking everything so much that basically nothing has been dealt with or constructively changed since the coup attempt occurred.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn't. That's so efficient.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

Go on

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well he has absolute immunity now. Could hang them all on the Whitehouse lawn. /s

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

/s ?

The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

A President's use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (3 children)

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It's not like they're consistent.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

That's why if Biden were to ever use this power, he'd have to go after SCOTUS first.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

The President's authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What should he have done against fascism?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Well, not picking an AG with no interest in prosecuting perpetrators of a literal fucking coup attempt would have been a start.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

Very true. I'm wondering if Garland is still holding out hope that he somehow gets on SCOTUS, as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm not exactly excited about Harris, but putting a former prosecutor in office at least makes me think she couldn't possibly put in a worse AG than Garland, at a time when we desperately need a firebrand in the position.

Plenty of opportunity to be proven wrong though 🙄

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago (2 children)

He’ll be remembered fondly if he doesn’t fuck up this election (i.e. not stepping aside).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

But what if he doesn’t step aside and wins reelection?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that’d work too. But it won’t happen.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Pack it up bois, newnewaccount called it. We are done here.

Instead of pissing about how it won't happen go do something else why don't you? Your usefulness here - Now - has run its course.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

For the millionth time: every time they've done it before, they lost in a landslide. NOT stepping aside is the marginally better play.

And as a voter more on the DNC side of the floor, after the news today I weep for the next 40 years in America.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

All 2 times this happened before? If that’s the best argument you have for running a candidate that is clearly too old both for campaigning and for the presidency, I think I would take my chances for a third try.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The best play is to roll the die on a real progressive but there's no data to back it up because there is no time to test it.