“(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.
Then fucking do something about it Joe! The DNC has been little more than passive observers to the raise of fascism.
Since we’re talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.
And to follow up on @teodor_from_achewood@lemmy.world’s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.
It’s on Biden to personally demonstrate to SCOTUS just how dangerous the ruling was.
By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.
I deeply disagree with this take. If we actually care about the Constitution and upholding what it stands for, then we have to work to undo the damage caused by this race to the bottom, not participate in it.
Good luck with that. You can “disagree” all the way to the concentration camp.
You know what would be a fantastic way to spur forward legislation and law stopping the president from doing anything bonkers?
Having the president do something bonkers that the evil assholes who are setting the field to make Trump a king, have no choice but to stop.
I like this idea. Republicans are desperate to prosecute the “Biden crime family” but can’t go after him because of this ruling. So Biden just has to do a bunch of illegal but non-violent stuff - like openly soliciting bribes - and Republicans would be forced to pass a law.
For that law to be valid, it can’t be targeted at one person - called “bill of attainder” - it would apply to all presidents going forward regardless of who’s elected.
Hoist them by their own petard.
No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter. The ruling says that the Constitution itself grants the President immunity, so it would take a Constitutional amendment to change it.
No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.
Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says “The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President.”
Once that’s done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.
There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, “atheists cannot hold public office” is a great example. Of course, those laws are “unenforceable” under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We’ve seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those “still on the books” unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.
Using the “atheists cannot hold public office” example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone’s campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go “Yeah! That’s what the law says!” because they’re too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.
Yes, technically they could, but any suit under that law would be vulnerable to getting thrown out on summary judgement. Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?
Would you agree that it’s more accurate to say that Congress can’t fix the system by reverting to the old law?
I’m not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?
They can’t take us back to the way things were on June 30th, 2024, to make this ruling like it didn’t happen. It doesn’t have the power. The best the that Congress can do is pass an unconstitutional law that may, at some future date, through a highly-fraught process in the courts, reverse it.
That’s the “right” way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.
Constitutional amendment
Still. The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation. Their messaging since 2015 has been embarrassing. They keep courting moderate conservatives that don’t exist and ignoring unrepresented potential voters who do. They talk about how they win elections when there’s good turn out without ever analyzing which candidates encourage high turnout. Americans want to feel represented in politics and we don’t. The Democrats need to do something that would weaken the democrat party but would weaken the Republican party more: they need to actively begin dismantling the two party system. We want election reform. We want the police to not be a hostile force against the general populace. We want the society we live in to benefit everyone and not just the kinds of people who can afford to finance an election campaign.
The polling exists. We all know that neither party represents or enacts what the people want do. The Democrats refuse to look around and see what’s happening, preferring to rearrange the deck chairs as the ship sinks because that’s the only thing they know to do. And you know? I can’t really blame them. We the people have also been rearranging the deck chairs. We live in a country that only benefits the top but we all still show up to do our duties without looking at what’s going on in other countries where the people are standing up to their authoritarian oppressors.
The worst part is the fascists know what they’re doing. They know to decay the structure by raising the temperature because we’ve become too complacent. We need to stand up to fascism in a way that we haven’t ever since McArthyism.
The DNC has systems in place to decide who to back in elections to pass legislation.
No it does not.
Then what the fuck is a primary and how do they decide to back in a primary and what the fuck is a super delegate?
What primary?
Bernie lost because he didn’t get enough votes.
Ya but was there a thumb on the scale to push people one way?
No
Sure. And I voted for warren. My point isn’t “The DNC needs to get their heads out of their asses and make Bernie their nominee” my point is “The DNC needs to get their heads our of their asses and realize their current overall strategy is a losing one”
Ugh. Stop. Talking. You Fucking. Knob.
Jesus Christ, someone might believe you so talk less. Please.
Please.
EDIT: PLEASE
Nah.
You all will whine and whine and whine but will never do the most basic political organizing.
This is an interpretation of the constitution, so what congress needs to do it to amend the constitution to explicitly state the president is not immune, and good luck getting that through
They can amend it or they can pass law citing a different part of the constitution or other judicial precedent, then if it gets challenged the Supreme Court would have to rule on the constitutionality of it’s latest legal justification.
Hopefully after we replace six justices.
They have nothing to do with passing legislation.
Get the fuck out of here.
“The DNC” doesn’t do what you think it does.
It doesn’t do what it should.
The point of the party is supposed to be long-term strategy and putting the platform over any one person.
When people talk about what the DNC should be doing, it’s not some “gotchya” to point out that they’re not doing their job and leadership needs replaced.
It’s just proving their point
So because the National Committee’s short and long term strategy is not what you’d be doing, you think they’re not doing anything.
Do you do any local political organizing?
you think they’re not doing anything.
What’s their long term plan?
As far as I can tell, it’s only prevent progressives from taking control of the party.
For now, they’re planning on getting out voters for the general election, and recruiting volunteers along the way.
Most planning falls to state and local parties - which you can easily get involved in.
Why haven’t you?
For now,
Bruh…
Do you know what “long term planning” means?
If you don’t think they have one, say it.
So basically the only thing they care about is winning, not actually representing peoples values?
Theyre more than just an election committee, thats what the DCCC is for.
Of course they are in it for the money, what do you think?
Some might call them enablers at this point.
He’s so pissed about it he’s gonna do absolutely nothing!
I would love to see him detain every scotus justice and stash em in a safe house for their protection/national security. Give them no freedom of movement or agency over their lives… see if they change their tune.
This sounds like it would be way more effective than the obvious bullshit that came to my mind. I’m with you.
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.
Apparently “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal” is now law.
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.
There are way worse thing biden could do withthis nearly unlimited power
And we’re still holding on to imagination.
Yeah he should. Shock everyone. Show them how bad this ruling is. I’m sure there are impermanent ways to display this.
These people are proving that anarchy would never work. The second murder became “legal” they all jumped to suggest it.
Murder happens all of the time in Capitalist society, too, you know? Even though it’s ‘illegal’ and all that.
Anarchy does not mean no rules, it just means there is no state to enforce those rules. Communities can still enforce their own rules in Anarchist society, and one of those rules can be ‘don’t murder’.
I know what anarchy is. You’re assuming murder would be forbidden in every community, but if a lot of people in this thread started communities, (at least they themselves) would be allowed to murder. That was my point.
oh, look, it’s one of these again.
Turns out Nixon was right this whole time.
Does this mean a president can make their tax filing an official act?
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
SCotUSthe Heritage Foundation and their interpretations.It’s a straw man to imply I said we should do “nothing”
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.
The only thing I’ve refused to accept is murder. Lying about that doesn’t change it. Btw practically no one suggested anything, but everyone who did and said something besides murder seemed somewhat reasonable to me.
It’s the tolerance paradox. We can tolerate all except the intolerant.
Can you tolerate electoral reform?
we should have standards. my standard for a fascist is that he should not exist.
removed by mod
Sure. Why not? It’s not like the next R in office wont do exactly that anyway.
Because morality and norms exist whether those corrupt fucks care about them or not.
The problem is that action must be taken now or those norms could go away forever.
Not for long they don’t
You can’t use norms and morality to defeat fascists
Murder it is then
Yes tie your hands while your opponent cleans their gun
But they’re not illegal things according to the highest court in the nation. That’s the entire point.
That doesn’t matter. I understand that premise and yet it still doesn’t matter
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.
Never said it was unimportant
Right you said it “doesn’t matter” which is another way of saying that something is unimportant.
When the other guy is willing to knife you its no time to stick to the rules of debate.
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.
Not illegal anymore bucko
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.
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.
Nah, murder is the popular idea here so let’s do that
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.
You’re suggesting Biden sends a government hit squad to assasinate supreme court judges?
Are you high?
No you’re right we should wait until trump orders the assassinations of rival politicians next January when he very well could get elected.
I mean, apparently he could now order a hit team to burst into Robert’s house at night, put a gun to his his head and say “Joe sends his completely legal regards” before leaving. Obviously killing them would be wrong but maybe it wouldnt be so bad to make them feel a bit of what they are unleashing, since conservatives often dont have empathy for things that dont happen to them or those close to them.
So…the hypothetical of trump using these new “standards” (for lack of a better word) that his judges set is justification for calling for the current president to beat him to the punch?
Do you know what would happen if Biden did that? Best case scenario, is he IMMEDIATELY loses the 2024 election, and trump then continues the practice with the justification of “he did it first!”. That’s the BEST possible outcome.
But it could go SOOOOOO much farther than that. It could honestly be the thing that starts the civil war 2 in this country before we even GET to the election. A government using it’s own resources to kill it’s own government officials. How is that not EXACTLY what russia does???
Why stop at supreme court judges? Why not kill trump? Why not kill every political opponent you face?
You tried to stop trump from introducing facism by saying it’s ok for Biden to introduce facism. Either way, this country falls to facism. You’re just debating which side is the new dictator.
Did you missread what i said or just choose to argue against what you wanted to read? I even included the words “obviously killing them would be wrong”, and its not like that was burried in dozens of lines nobody will read through.
I suggested showing the judge he could be targeted with his own ruling not killing him.
You’re actually being serious
yup I’m totally saying let’s do nothing about this. You people are brilliant.
What should we do then? The default assumption is nothing, give us something to actually work with or the assumption is true.
Protest. We should flood the streets and not go to work.
Not murder. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know. I know, no one ever admits this online so it’s probably weird to read
The default assumption is nothing
That is on you
Republicans have spent the past 50 years screaming that guns exist to thwart a tyrannical government. Not that they bring tyranny to our doorstep, I’m not writing off the one thing they’ve admitted could stop them.
The current brand of right wing fascism taking over in this country will kill millions if left unchecked. I’m not encumbered by the trolley problem here, the people who want to bring fascism to America should die if that’s what it takes to stop them.
Calling for civil war is always good
I don’t intend to start it, I intend to finish it.
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).
They are literally not illegal anymore. He can declare Trump to be a danger and send seal team six to execute him. He can forgive half of all student debt and transfer the other half to an unlucky dude in Oklahoma. He can forbid to be called Joseph to everybody else. He can cancel the elections. Very legal and very cool.
“Illegal” my left asshole.
How many assholes do you have?
Thirteen of them and they’re all well guarded. How many do you have??
Only 12
would you care to elaborate on what you believe should be done about this?
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.
You’re wasting your time, Best Friend.
I will consider this harassment and report you if you do this again
-
Lemmy is a rather small community by comparrison. I’m bound to run into you frequently.
-
I don’t care what you do. It has no impact on me.
-
If it truly bothered you, you would block me. It’s ridiculously easy.
-
Look in the mirror, dawg
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.
I got one. Present a new bill that says supreme court judges are not for life with no chance to remove them.
Every 4 years on election years, but months before the presidential election, (so maybe spring/summer) they allow the general public to vote on their performance. If they get less than 65% approval rating, they’re out. They’ll be replaced by the new president, technically next year (since the election happens in November, but the inauguration is in January).
So if a court judge is less than 65% popular with the public, they’re gone.
And yes, I see the problem of “but the nation is so divided right now that neither side could get that approval rating, and all 12 judges would just be replaced every 4 years…”
Which is partially by design. We need a system that fundamentally breaks all systems that keep corrupt people in power, and actively discourages the media, and politicians from taking this “us vs them” mentality.
A republican SHOULD be presenting their set of ideas that benefit ALL Americans.
A democrat SHOULD be presenting a different set of opposing ideas that benefit ALL Americans.
And the public should vote on what will benefit them most. There should be no such thing as career democrats, or career republicans. It should be a free flowing liquid set of ideas that get catagorized as democrat this time, but based on the people in the election, maybe next time you’re catagorized as more republican than the other guy. So, this election you’re republican instead.
Because everybody is so concerned about “The other side”, that everybody forgets one key thing. It may be two sides, but they’re two sides to the same coin. That coin is America. Right now, and for the past 8 years, that coin has been just falling to the ground.
thank you for presenting at least a decent idea. the ideas of shoot trump is just stupid. yeah biden can’t be prosecuted for it but the person who shoots trump can be. it’s still against the law and would basically guarantee a civil war in this country.
while the bill is a good idea. would it actually pass? i mean think about it. right now the republicans own the court and will own it until the current batch dies. why would they vote for the bill? but on the face of it . it’s a good idea.
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?
I kept checking and no one would give specifics. I gave up on the conversation. But I’ll go look
Unless you are 100% in agreement with them then you must 100% be against them.
I know what you mean. It’s pretty freaking sad. This isn’t facebook, where there’s an 80% chance I have horrid views if you think I might have them. Yet they behave like it’s facebook.
Or maybe your views are just wildly unpopular, that’s a possibility too.
removed by mod
Yah, I mean you’d hate to have any introspection, easier to insult everyone else.
removed by mod
So, Biden can order seal team 6 to permanently fix the Supreme Court by removing 6 and leaving 3 alive. Gotcha.
After all, those 6 argued that he has the right to do so.
Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!
deleted by creator
I really felt like i was there
Democrats will continue to give sternly worded remarks all the way up to their appointment with the gallows, so brave!
When They Go Low, We Go Die
Chapter 3
Marjorie smiled with great satisfaction as she looked at the crowd and began to check the rifle in her arms to make sure there was a round in the chamber.
2 men with giant beer guts - who each wore different flavors of Punisher-style skull masks and were covered head to toe in pointlessly elaborate tactical surplus gear as if they were cosplaying their favorite Call of Duty characters - began dragging another elderly man up to the makeshift platform.
The white-haired old man was dressed in a finely tailored dark blue suit with a little American flag lapel pin next to his tie. It looked so similar to the one that so many others in his cohort had adorned for probably the last 20 or so years, but he had been blindfolded by the men before being brought before the stage so he couldn’t see how many others still wore it or who had switched to the golden lion that… “the others…” now wore exclusively.
The octogenarian ghost of a man feebly began to speak (not shout) loudly in protest as if trying to reason with whomever might be in charge, but the 2 pig-like men grinned and said nothing. They began tying his hands behind him against a wooden pole covered with small holes, indentations and spatters of red. As the grinning pigs both stepped away from the geriatric man secured to the pole, the mob just below him roared with wild bloodlust over his inaudible words drowning them out over and over again with : “USA! USA! USA! USA!”
Marjorie laughed and took one hand away from the rifle to quiet the crowd so they could hear the old man’s words :
“Point of order, Mr. Chairman! Point of order! I’m reclaiming my time! I’d like the gentle-lady to put down the firearm she just picked up, Mr. Ch-”
…he was cut off with a loud and sudden BANG as he slumped into a dark puddle of red slowly expanding across the stage floor.
The crowd roared and resumed its repeated chant…
…and another blindfolded well-dressed elderly figure was walked up to the pole.
Quoting the entire comment you’re replying to is kinda redundant
deleted by creator
Ugh, it’s literally Julius Caesar vs Cato all over again.
Biden is Cato obviously.
I declare an official act of presidency!
Insert Michael Scott drawing a gun.
Only if he claims it’s an official act though! Don’t forget that part! Write “official act as president” on everything!
If he issues it as an executive order, it works.
It doesn’t have to be an executive order, he’s in charge of the military. Any command he gives them is an official act, and can’t be questioned now.
And then he can pardon them as they don’t have the same immunity as he now has. Pardons are also official acts.
Only for federal crimes, but that covers most things involving the military anyway
Ah, good point.
Also, I’m not sure being pardoned has an impact on if they can be discharged for following an order that a tribunal disagrees with. They might not end up in jail, but it could be the end of their military career
In red ink at a 45° angle. He’s basically a sovcit now.
Biden fucking dumbass going blast no kings well I can promise you if Trump wins exactly how he will act. He will take Full of advantage of this ruling.
Best thing Biden can do but he want is take advantage of it to in helping out the American people.
Any seal team actually, also various other military personnel.
It is up to congress to stop that not the courts. He should be impeached if he tries that.
He should. But he should still do it, and ST6 moves faster than congress.
Uh what… How do you figure?
Congress can expand the court to put the corrupt asses in minority and them the ruling can be reversed
With a Senate split down the middle? Never going to happen.
Just tell Joe that there are six Palestinian children on the court and he’ll get right on it.
How original
If only he were in some position of power to do something about it hmmmmmm.
Dumbass and spineless Biden and Democrats. The supreme court literally just started that America had a king but this dumbass party would rather take some stupid fucking high road bullshit instead of playing the game to ensure the fascist fuck around and find out.
They don’t even have to resort to assassinations, they could really tell the IRS to audit 501© and remove their status from the churches and bullshit Republican charities, or tell the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and corruption to fuck over Republican groups and representatives, or tell the FDA to allow the sale of raw milk.
Play the god damn game and be the fucking king if these corrupt justice says there’s a king.
Ok Biden, time to do something about these fascists. They just gave you everything you need to squash the threat, on a silver platter fit for a king. It’s time to process the new information, understand the powers granted to you, and act - are you up to this task? Please don’t let America down, because you have asserted yourself as the only one who can now do anything about it.
deleted by creator
Biden: The Supreme Court ruled I can do ANYTHING I WANT!
Also Biden: So I will do NOTHING! Please Vote kthxbai!
Yes, because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for, not just some adversarial power game. Claim the paradox of tolerance all you want, but fighting fire with fire here is just participating in the same race to the bottom that’s destroying our democracy here in the USA.
Preemptive strikes exist. Law does not need to apply after the fact if the law is allowed preventive measures.
And arguing about if one should take such a preventive strike, yes they should since the perp has already declared threatening intentions to cause immediate harm.
The people arguing against using this new power because using it now makes you just as bad as “them,” are the dog-sitting-in-a-room-on-fire meme.
"Using the fire ax is just as evil as destroying the house yourself! Get fucked. We caught the Republicans smoking. Make them smoke the whole pack.
Biden has moved worker rights and more forwards, what’s your point?
Like when he broke up the rail union strike shortly before that horrible train crash in Ohio that unleashed toxic black clouds over the town?
You mean when the rail union got what they asked for, because all while Trump supported companies against unions,
The rail union thanked the Biden administration for helping getting their demands through,
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
"We’re thankful that the Biden administration played the long game on sick days and stuck with us for months after Congress imposed our updated national agreement,” Russo said. “Without making a big show of it, Joe Biden and members of his administration in the Transportation and Labor departments have been working continuously to get guaranteed paid sick days for all railroad workers.
“We know that many of our members weren’t happy with our original agreement,” Russo said, “but through it all, we had faith that our friends in the White House and Congress would keep up the pressure on our railroad employers to get us the sick day benefits we deserve. Until we negotiated these new individual agreements with these carriers, an IBEW member who called out sick was not compensated.”
You’re forgetting that the goal of unions isn’t to strike, it’s to protect their member’s rights, and they got their rights. Strikes is one means of applying pressure, Biden applied pressure by other means
If he has practicality no limits what’s preventing him from getting the decision undone and making it so that the president could never have such power?
If he has all the power in the world he should also have power to undo that power.
He doesn’t have legislative power, that’s the difference. He controls the executive branch, so he can direct law enforcement and regulator agencies and more however he wants. But he can’t single-handedly restrict his own power in a way the next president can’t undo
So tell SCOTUS either they reverse it and add that they’ll never do it again or they get “executive ordered”. If they refuse you “executive order” them, after all that’s what they thought wouldn’t be illegal. Continue until you get a SCOTUS who won’t refuse. If the SCOTUS wants to throw their lives away for their own stupidity, let them.
The constitution has been ripped to shreds, spit on, and set on fire. Any moral high ground is meaningless at this point.
because he actually cares about what the Constitution stands for
I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him. I seriously doubt any politician at this level gives two shits about anything but themselves and their power.
I think you’re just projecting your own beliefs onto him.
That’s fair; my statement was pretty strong. But I think we can agree that by comparison Biden cares more about it than his opponent, a known insurrectionist.
Alternative take: letting Republicans do whatever they want and not fighting back or taking actions to prevent it, is what is destroying your democracy.
Unless you’re willing to claim we’re in a civil war, then I’m not willing to call Republicans “the enemy” … That’s that the real enemies of America want of us: to divide and conquer from within.
The Republicans are literal claiming this is war and treating it as such.
FDR trying to pack the crap out of scotus with liberal judges so all his social reforms would actually go through instead of being struckdown.
Modern dems cant fathom having gumption. All they have is furrowed brows while the repubs destroy dismantle and overthrow.
Dem brow furrowing will intensify until GOP is the one true ruler.
If he clearly cared, he would get rid of the fucking traitors that are in office, right now.
Only you plebs argue about the constitution while the people in charge treat it like a napkin.
Wow it’s a shame he’s a fucking pussy who won’t author an ‘official act’ to oust the supreme court.
Right? Order the DOJ to lock up all of the justices (so it’s bi-partisan!).
I came into this post and your comment was pre-upvoted for me somehow. I didn’t upvote you, but I’m gonna keep it.
You don’t need to resort to misogyny/sexist insults to make a point.
removed by mod
Calls you out on the word pussy but doesn’t call you out on the word cunt lmao
That would be xenophobic, because the word is used everywhere in the UK constantly. (/s of course)
Edit: The removed comment above was mine, and I told Bolex that using the word pussy isn’t misogynistic, just like calling someone a dick isn’t misandrist… World News mods didn’t like that though because people were agreeing with me…and we can’t have anyone calling out the victim-olympics, wouldn’t want that!
How dare you? Haven’t you seen the World News logo? This is a criticism-free zone.
Geez, how fragile.
You’re trying too hard
They’re not the one crying about a bad word online lol
And you got ratio’d kiddo
Imagine thinking fake Internet points matter, let alone decide who is right and wrong. I thought those of us who left Reddit learned that lesson. I guess it takes a little longer for some of us 🤷♂️
Tell you what, let’s go through your comment history and find all the times you were on the wrong side and make sure you adjust your views accordingly. Fair’s fair right?
You do you pal. I replied because you keep doubling down. I don’t care much to fit some homogeneous mindset so I’m fine being wrong. The fake internet point blackhole you got going does got you riled up evident by this engagement
Bro YOU brought up the vote count! You are the one who acted like it matters. I literally don’t even know what the scores are - it doesn’t show downvotes on my end, so no I really do not care what the vote counts are but you can go ahead and feel superior about… I don’t know, owning somebody because you think you should be able to call people a pussy without having to consider what the word means? Congratulations, you won! Must feel great. You really brought home a W for free speech on that one. Truly this is what you should be fighting for.
I am happy to double down on telling people that they should maybe consider the language they use. If you find that offensive and feel the need to go to war over it I don’t know what to tell you. If I’m a sick puppy you’re at the vet with me too lol
Now I need to look up the origin of that word. I thought it came up separately from the body part reference.
It did. It’s an abbreviation of the word pusillanimous.
However, almost everybody thinks it’s referring to vagina, so it doesn’t really matter anymore. Even most people who use it think that.
What matters is 99.99% of people understand “pussy” as “vagina” so yeah that’s kind of the issue here.
You’ll notice that I said that in my post.
I didn’t disagree
“Pussy” is pretty narrowly used in place of “vagina” and is used almost exclusively as an insult to call someone weak or cowardly (outside of a sexual context).
And what’s the problem? If it were sexist they would be using “stop being a woman” compared to “stop being a pussy”. One is sexist the other is just an insult. Grow some skin. This is the internet, after all.
is just an insult
You are so close. What makes being a pussy a bad thing? Why is that an insult? Unpack that for a second. Use your critical thinking skills.
Because pussies tend to be soft and delicate and theyre saying he should be hard and strong instead of soft and delicate.
It is baffling to me that what you just wrote didn’t sort this out for you.
Lol and what makes having a low temperature desirable, because those people are cool. You really are digging for something to be offended by.
Do I really need to point out that this is a false equivalency?
You sound like a real dick
As opposed to a fake one?
Ey, you’re catching on
Jfc how bored do you need to be to have like four different conversations going with me. Feel free to have the last word, I’m sure it’s very important to you. I’m done
Christ, can you fuck off?
These are the fucking hand wringing “liberals” that I can’t stand.
Feelings over Freedom!
I don’t know where I fall because whereas I believe in equity for all and protecting the children and planet and all that shit, I also strongly lean towards swift and immediate retribution and don’t care whose feelings get hurt.
Lmfao I’m taking your freedom? How dramatic.
The block feature is readily available to you. Enjoy!
Good point.
Blocked.
Bye!
I am fairly certain “pussy” is slang for pusillanimous. Can it be used misogynisticly, yes. Was that the intent here, I don’t think so based off the context.
From the link:
And despite what you may have heard, pusillanimous does not serve as the basis for pussyfoot, pussycat, or a certain related vulgarism.
And the f slur means “a bundle of sticks”. That doesn’t make it not a slur.
I’m glad to see someone else here talking sense
All of us learned it as a way to call someone a “vagina” to highlight they are weak or cowardly. You can’t possibly tell me that wasn’t how you learned it.
So based off of that comment alone and the context surrounding it, do you truly believe their intent was to be misogynistic or were they using slang to emphisize their frustration while calling Biden a coward?
Intention is irrelevant. Otherwise I could just call people slurs and argue the slur’s meaning is irrelevant. The insult is clearly associating having/being a vagina with cowardice and weakness.
Yeah, I guess I can see your point. I was under the impression that a lot more people were aware of the root of that word. I grew up reading a lot of books, so I guess that factored into my view. Thanks for the perspective, I am all for phasing out legitimately problematic language.
I’m not 100% what your upbringing was, but at least for us in America generally you learned that word sometime in middle school as something to call other boys as an insult. You’re definitely well read because frankly I’ve never even heard that word until this thread lol
Imagine thinking that being offended is going to stop someone from using speech for the specific purpose of offending.
Shut up wuss.
Damn I got got! What a big strong man you are! You sure showed me!
Let me give you a little tip I gave someone else: the block button is easily within your grasp, if maybe a bit advanced for you. But i’m sure that with hard work and determination even you could figure out how to use it.
Bye!
“Biden Blasts Supreme Court” could have a whole new meaning after their latest ruling
deleted by creator
Probably a lot longer. These SCOTUS decrees will last until the US crumbles to dust.
Although, they might have accellerated the timeline towards the end significantly.
They charge rulings but usually only generations later.
“This is not a place of honor”, but it’s for the Supreme Court building.
Trump’s election proved that most of America’s governmental system was based around a series of “gentlemen’s agreements” and an expectation of fair play. America is not resilient to betrayal in any fashion. If one person stops respecting the rule of fair play the entire system crumbles.
What is to stop Biden from cancelling the upcoming election?
Being now his powers are effectively unchecked, couldn’t he just call off the election as an official act. Rather than stupid shit like ordering assassination or deploying the military, just say “I’m cancelling the election until such time this ruling is overturned and a constitutional amendment is enacted that states that the president is not immune from criminal prosecution”
He doesn’t need to cancel the elections. He just needs to wait until after the conventions, when congress and the supreme court are in recess. And then he issues an executive order barring convicted felons from holding federal office.
Saving that move for Trump. It’s the dystopian future I guess we deserve.
Couldn’t even make it 300 years.
This protects him from prosecution but doesn’t require other officials to help him break the law. States don’t need the president’s approval to run elections, and Congress doesn’t need his approval to certify the votes of electors in the presidential election specifically.
He can just pardon all of them, and his discussions can’t even be questioned in court now. Hell, bribery is legal now too.
This reminds me of something…gaining favor of the ruler is key to your advancement.
deleted by creator
Ok, fair enough.
I’m not from the US so my understanding of your system is surface level.
Could he give himself the power to do this?
deleted by creator
The president can’t actually make law, as far as I understand it. He, and the various offices managed by the executive branch, apply and enforce the law which Congress has written (give or take some interpretation by the courts).
Sometimes of those laws specifically give the executive broad enough authority over something that it’s very similar to the president being able to write laws about it, but it’s not quite the same and it cant overrule actual laws
The US government is based on the idea of separation of powers, and making the President as weak as possible while still being able to do his job. The President can’t just decide he has a new authority, Congress has to sign legislation that delegates a specific authority to the President. That authority is typically organized in the from of a Cabinet office, which is filled with the advise and consent or Congress.
America was made to abolish kings, that’s why this ruling is so ludicrous, so antithetical to the very Constitution the court is supposed to uphold, and why people are so up in arms about it.
Only in times of war. It’s literally one of the checks and balances to specifically prevent a president from stopping an election. Now, if we start a full blown war with Russia…
I hear those checks and balances are starting to look a little unreliable.
He’s the commander in chief of the US military. If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority, it’s essentially unlimited.
If there aren’t repercussions for exceeding his authority,
There still are repercussions, all that has changed is that personal criminal prosecution is no longer among those.
deleted by creator
I like how every single one of these comments are blaming Biden and the Democrats for a supreme court ruling that the conservatives and Republicans enacted. How about we put the blame on the people who are actually doing the terrible things?
This is why the Republicans keep winning btw, because they’re united.
deleted by creator
The 18th century British
