• UnpopularCrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    297
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    No need to. Biden can have the 6 corrupt justices killed. He has the immunity and he can pick new justices. If members of the senate refuse to put the new justices on the bench, have them killed too. No rules anymore.

    • TunaCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      84
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Strategically speaking liberal politicians are backed into a corner and only have two real options:

      1. Seize control preemptively, promoting conservative conspiracy to prophecy, and likely inciting CW2.

      2. Hand over full control come January and hope they continue to maintain some privilege under a new regime.

      They’re already in check, but more concerned with soliciting large donations and collecting hot stick tips.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          When confronted with fascist Threats liberals always blink. They’ll wade through masses of bodies to destroy what they perceive to be a leftist threat, but they don’t stand up to fascists.

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            7 days ago

            All democracies turn into dictatorships - but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it’s Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea.

            George Lucas

            • oo1@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Didn’t Caesar literally march his army into Rome? ‘crossing the rubicon’ - and then there was a thing called the roman civil war

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        Liberal politicians do not need to be the ones to make sure #1 happens. The second amendment literally exists so the citizens have the capacity to do that ourselves.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            It wasn’t a joke from me. Democracy dies when the good man does nothing. I am a good man and I will fight for this democracy, as fucked up as it is. The right believes the left to be weak pacifists because we choose compromise, tolerance, and acceptance over bigotry, hate, and subjugation. They will need to learn the hard way that we choose that because we know that mutually beneficial social contracts make living better and provide a safe, prosperous world. They obviously do not want to be party to these social contracts with me, so I will not allow them any of the safety or benefits.

            • InternetUser2012@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              He does, but why would the president tell the army to do nothing when the people are rising up against said president? Nobody is that stupid, any rise up against the government will end with the military curb stomping it in about 15 minutes.

              • MonkRome@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 days ago

                Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don’t serve to shoot their own country. Countries don’t want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won’t support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.

      • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Option 2 is suicide. I guess that’s it for American Democracy. Of course, option 3 being that the Democrats win every election until the Republican party collapses. At which point the Democratic party will likely split, with one part becoming a moderate party, and the other half absorbing the remains of the Republican party.

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      The quickest way to save the country would be for Biden to kill the 6 justices that ruled in favour of immunity (and I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t even mind since they’re the ones that made it legal), install 6 liberal judges and the new court can overturn every ruling the corrupt court made. Which means Biden would probably end up in prison, but hey, it’s a small price to pay for democracy.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Why would he end up in prison? It would not have been a crime when he committed it. That’s what immunity means.

        • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          Yep. They made an official ruling, Biden acts on it appropriately, new Justices get appointed in a month (or else), new Court orders a review of every case the six fascists ruled on.

          Oh, what do you know, first out the door, no, extrajudicial murder powers aren’t supported by the Constitution!

          Whoopsie.

      • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        112
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        Who says he can’t? The Supreme Court just said that he’s immune from “official acts” without even defining what that would mean. Who determines what is and isn’t an official act? The President? The Supreme Court? Right now, as this ruling is worded, all bets are off. There’s nothing stopping a sitting President from just arbitrarily declaring someone as a threat to national security and having them picked off by ST6 as an “official act to prevent a terrorist attack against the United States”, then just having the details classified.

        Having something criminal declared as an “official act” is piss-easy, especially when you’re in charge of the branch making the decision and you have one of the other branches in your back pocket, possibly both.

      • blazera@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Trumps own legal team has described political assassinations as qualifying as an official act as president

          • potpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            “Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution” makes pretty much anything fair fucking game.

            • Akuden@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              7 days ago

              “The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,”

              I don’t understand how you can confuse this sentence. People act like the president can commit any crime they want. That is categorically false. Crimes committed in the name in the highest office of the land are not o in an official capacity.

              The U.S. Constitution includes several provisions that limit the powers of the president and prevent the president from committing crimes without consequences:

              Article I, Section 2 and Section 3: These sections provide the House of Representatives the power to impeach the president and the Senate the power to try and convict the president. Impeachment is a process by which the president can be removed from office for committing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Article II, Section 4: This section specifically states that the president, vice president, and all civil officers of the United States can be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

              Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: The president must take an oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath implies a legal and ethical obligation to adhere to the law and Constitution.

              Checks and Balances: The Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances, whereby the legislative and judicial branches can limit the actions of the executive branch. Congress can pass laws, override presidential vetoes, and control the budget, while the judiciary can review the constitutionality of presidential actions through judicial review.

              Together, these provisions and principles ensure that the president is subject to the rule of law and can be held accountable for criminal actions.

      • Butt Pirate@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        48
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        There’s some hyperbole in these threads for sure, but not a lot. The president can’t handwave away the bill of rights, because nothing in the constitution gives them that power.

        However, the president does have the authority as commander in chief of authorizing lethal force against individuals. If Biden authorized Seal Team 6 to execute Trump, that is in fact an official act that he has the authority to perform. Sure maybe it is technically not legal, but that doesn’t matter since the president has complete immunity from criminal law. The house could still draft articles of impeachment but the senate would be unable to remove the president because the president is immune to criminal proceedings.

        And if Trump wants to create an organization to round up and execute all the gays (and the Jews, of course), he has the power to do that; and with today’s ruling, he will never face consequences for doing so.

        Irreparable damage has been done to American democracy today.

      • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        41
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        The president can’t commit criminal acts and claim it was an official capacity, lol.

        What the fuck do you mean “lol”. That is PRECISELY what this ruling does. It removes criminal liability for anything that is done as an official act, which is entirely fucking subjective, and up to the interpretation of a corrupt, coopted judiciary. Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit.

          • Riccosuave@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            The stupidity of this statement truly strains belief given the actual verbiage in this ruling. May you suffer the full weight and consequences of that stupidity.

          • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            A person of power cannot commit a crime and claim it was in official capacity, because the act itself is against the law and cannot be committed without consequence.

            This whole ruling is because of a person in power (Trump) who committed a crime (fake electors plot to overturn the 2020 election) and is claiming it as an official capacity of the office. That’s the whole point of the case which was appealed to the Supreme Court.

            So what consequence will Trump face for his crimes now based on this ruling?

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        You can organize a coup to overthrow the government and claim it’s an official act, there’s absolutely nothing stopping a president from claiming assassinations are an official act now. Hell, the commander in chief already organizes assassinations on foreign targets.

        The Democrats might not abuse this, but the Republicans will, and they have given themselves carte blanche to start killing political dissidents.

      • noride@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        But he can commit official acts that happen to be criminal. Semantics are fun!

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Supreme court literally just said he could by saying Jan 6 was fine for President to incite

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        If they are traitors and terrorists, he may have to send them to Guantanamo.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        While i agree with you, it’s a huge grey area. Like Biden could have trump assassinated and then claim that his constitutional duties require him to protect the cotus from enemies both foreign and domestic.

        Official act or not?

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Please cite where in the ruling it says charges would be brought against him.

            • Mirshe@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              7 days ago

              In fact, it would have to be the DoJ or Congress that did so - Biden could order the DoJ to stop, and arguably could have anyone in Congress killed or jailed without trial by stating that they presented a clear danger to democracy by trying to impeach him.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is the sane and rational thing to do. Look forward to seeing what comes of it, keep fighting AOC!

  • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why does Biden not simply EAT the Justices as an Official Presidential Act?

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      7 days ago

      Because eating poisonous animals is dangerous and we all know that Thomas and Kavanaugh have the most toxic blood possible while being able to pass as human from a medical point of view.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Like seriously, I’m tired of whining on the internet about this shit. Where can I go to learn about joining a protest? It’s better that doing fuck all by tut-tutting the establishment hellbent on fucking us over while they count their money.

    • rozodru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      think you Americans are beyond a peaceful protest at this point, right now you need a revolution. you are quite literally 4 months away from a potential dictatorship.

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      You could get involved in campaigning for a Democrat running in a local senate race, actually get involved in politics and work for change

    • FatCat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      46
      ·
      7 days ago

      A few more peaceful protests is sure to fix things in a giffie!

      💩💯💯

      • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        7 days ago

        Peaceful protests build the sense of consensus and unity. Violent solutions can’t succeed without both popular support and enough participants to make a difference, but if everybody’s scared of standing alone they’re doomed. Sudden upheaval is likely to make more people oppose the change, because most people like stability.

        Peaceful protests that get gradually more frustrated are more likely to support more drastic measures than a sudden upheaval. Whether or not you believe peaceful protests will fix anything, they’re the best solution that’s viable right now.

        • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I live in Russia, I’m having flashbacks of explanations why all the opposition is doing is peaceful protests.

          Nah, it doesn’t work. The faster you get to throwing Molotov cocktails, the better.

          • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            If it’s five people throwing them, they’re terrorists. If it’s five million, they’re a problem. (Depending on the size of country and military, I’m pulling numbers out my arse to exemplify a point, not as accurate measures).

            Numbers matter. If you have enough people on your side and willing to join the throwing for your cocktails to make a difference, that might work for you. But if most of the populace are scared to lose more than they stand to gain, you’ll end up with the brave throwers arrested or killed, the media denouncing their “undemocratic” acts and possibly the people even more afraid to do anything.

            Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It’s hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you’ll end up another failed insurrection.

            • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              The bad guys know this too, they’ll penetrate your organization (if it’s decentralized, they’ll still poison it with plenty of agents, they’ve got taxpayers’ money), they’ll use your inaction to communicate apathy, they’ll even have something false flag to still cause the effect you’re describing without real people using force. And their media doesn’t need anything real to happen to report it.

              Any revolutionary movement will need to hit a point of critical mass that allows it to succeed. It’s hard to gauge just when that point is reached, but if you misjudge, you’ll end up another failed insurrection.

              Not hard for a government, no. Anything predictable and organized will not succeed. As chaotic and brave as possible or not at all.

              • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 days ago

                As chaotic and brave as possible or not at all.

                That’s sounds accurate for Russia, but could it be that different strategies remain possible in the US? The US could be on it’s way to be a totalitarian state like Russia, but it’s not there yet, and still has a lot of (flawed) democratic institutions. I think in the US you can still protest without being put in jail.

                • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  I don’t think so, because what I said didn’t mention anything about already having totalitarianism. The means today’s governments have at their disposal allow to achieve most of things done by classic 30s totalitarian regimes without visible violence.

        • BuckenBerry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 days ago

          Peaceful protests are really only effective if they are seen as an alternative to more militant groups.

          Martin Luther King non violence wouldn’t have been that popular if it wasn’t seen as an alternative for Malcolm X’s more radical ideology.

          I’m pretty sure something similar occurred with the suffrage movement but I didn’t remember the details.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      58
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s ok, the the president can now just have them assassinated as a defence of the constitution.

      • Akuden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        7 days ago

        Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.

        • Jorn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 days ago

          “Official capacity” has not been defined yet so we don’t know what the limits are. We will have to wait and see.

          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            6 days ago

            I can’t believe how many (I don’t know, shills?) there are about this.

            I’m not American, I’m sitting out side, looking in, and watching the USA become a fascist dictatorship, and I’m terrified.

            Every other democracy’s right wing looks up to the USA for inspiration for their own fascist agenda.

            If this all goes sideways from Americans, we’re following shortly afterwards.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 days ago

          If the President can communicate with the DoJ or VP, even about doing something illegal or as part of some illegal scheme and be immune to prosecution because being in contact with the VP and DoJ are part of his duties, why would talking to the CIA to ask them to “retire” SCOTUS justices not be an official act that’s immune to prosecution?

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    7 days ago

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    WHY DOESN’T BIDEN IMMEDIATELY USE HIS NEW POWERS TO DO IT

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      The president cannot impeach them unilaterally, and is explicitly out of his power.

      He could, however, potentially send them to a blacksite as a prisoner or conveniently kill them as part of that arrest. They could claim collusion with domestic terror groups, espionage, corruption, etc, as very plausible justification for arrest, and that would probably qualify as official duties, at least how this SCOTUS would classify the same actions if executed by a republican president.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      I mean… in his place I’d probably make them think I was going to do it to see if it would change their mind.

    • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      It’s because the sad fact of the matter is that both of our political parties are working together to fuck us.

      I don’t know how else to interpret this.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 days ago

        I think it’s much more obvious that one party cares about decorum no matter what is going on.

        • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 days ago

          Oh thank god for decorum.

          Glad to hear that one party is playing by imagined rules and that the other party is playing by what is actually written.

          Good thing that we’re getting fucked either way.

          I don’t think that many people have realized this yet, but we are all fucked no matter who is in office.

          It’s very evident that nothing is getting better no matter who from our two choices is in charge.

          I’m actually losing weight (that I don’t need to lose) because the cost of living is too high. I’ve had to start working more, and it’s barely helping.

          Thank the good lord that the DNC is following decorum though. So glad that they’re being polite while we are being absolutely fucked.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            I wasn’t implying it was a good thing, just the explanation of why they don’t get more done.

            That said, they have improved a few things. It just isn’t as much as we need. Insulin, for example, is in a much better place, and that should be expanding to cover more drugs. Thr democrats are significantly better than the Republicans. They are not both the same. They just aren’t as good as we deserve.

            • abracaDavid@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              I’m sorry to vent at you. It wasn’t really meant to be directed at you. I’m just very frustrated.

              My girlfriend is a diabetic, and insulin is indeed more affordable. It still costs her about $120 a month for something that costs pennies to produce.

              My real point though, is that it doesn’t matter who is in power. Things are getting dramatically worse every year no matter who is in the White House.

              The Supreme Court is obviously completely fucked. They literally made it legal for them to be bribed. And they are not elected by citizens, and also have a lifetime appointment.

              There is nothing that we as citizens can legally do to curb their power. We are quite literally at their mercy, and they are not being merciful.

              And I haven’t even touched on our actual real long-term problems.

    • experbia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 days ago

      is biden better than trump? yes. am I voting biden? yes, there’s no other real option. is he a feckless snivelling coward that only cares about people if they offer him a chance for power? yes. does he actually intend to do anything to improve our country and stave off a christofascist totalitarian takeover? hell no he doesn’t lmao

      he won’t do a good god damn thing if the corporations who have their fists up his ass don’t force him to, and they don’t give a shit about any of this because when it all turns red come inauguration day, regulations and protections will be stripped away and they’ll have no restriction on how they can abuse us and our planet for their own gain.

      he has this new power, and just like with the power he holds now, he won’t do anything with it that will actually move the needle and improve quality of life for anyone unless it serves his interest. the next guy will use it though. bend over, y’all.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Big tough guy on the internet, but let’s see how you feel when Trump’s brown shirts are knocking on doors to check if you’re harboring any trans people…

        I wish I was joking, but be prepared because this shit can happen fast. Then maybe you’ll think back on this election and wonder what could have happened if all you stupid motherfuckers would just shut the fuck up and vote for Biden.

        “Wahhh we had four years to choose a better candidate and we did FUCKING NOTHING. Now we’re looking literal fascism in the face and we’re suddenly all concerned about who our presidential candidates are.” You know we have a whole process for this, right? It doesn’t start 5 months before the election.

        It’s so fucking juvenile. We get it, you’re not going to vote. Stop spreading your cancer.

        • experbia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          if you’re not American, I would understand that to be a reasonable suggestion. not how it works here, though.

          under our system of voting, third party votes are less than worthless. I would rather that not be the case, but here we are.

          If you’re American or if you’re not simply ignorant of that fact, I assume you’re salivating at the idea of getting a reluctant biden voter to vote third party to help secure your authoritarian party win.

        • Snowclone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 days ago

          The system is set up to only have two options. It’s intentional. Also the VP used to be the party that lost. That’s how much it matters to vote after the parties pick a nominee.

  • tea@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Articles of impeachment is fine as this process stinks and I think this court failed, but we really, long-term, we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear that this is not okay.

    I love the constitution, wonderful framework, but it needs the following amendments:

    1. Anti-corruption measures on the judiciary (looking at you Thomas). Provide some teeth to enforce recusal and avoid conflicts of interest.

    2. Term limits for justices and age limits on all elected/appointed officials at the highest level (justices, pres/VP, congress). Tie those to either the retirement age or a percentage of life expectancy (as we get older as a society, and work into our later years, federal officials should be able to remain longer too).

    3. Divestment requirements for all federal elected and appointed officials. i.e. no more insider trading, sorry.

    4. Replace the electoral college with a popular vote.

    5. Replace the filibuster with nothing. Fuck that thing. Let the legislators legislate. If, whatever it is, is a bad idea, it’ll be shown to be a bad idea and the next congress will fix it. This is especially important now that Chevron is no more. The court just replaced rules created by executive offices with the most dysfunctional branch of government (congress) without any prospect of undysfuctionalizing themselves.

    6. Congress shouldn’t be allowed to block supreme court justices without a vote. Once they are announced, they have X days to approve/deny or they are auto-approved.

    7. (edit) I can’t believe this has to be done, but the President is not above the law. The president must follow the law while in office, following “official acts” or not. This is a fucking democracy, not a dictatorship.

    While I know there are other ways to approach a lot of these and those ways are easier is not the point of my post. These are things that the constitution is currently WRONG about and it should just be fixed.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago
      1. Yes please.

      2. The way you framed this is dangerous as conservatives already want to eliminate retirement so everyone who is not rich has to be a wage slave until death. This just gives them incentive.

      3. You will just create a shell game. Their spouses or children or cousins will just suddenly become amazing at trading. Or that weird company that incorporated in the Maldives with Fred Flintstone and Betty Boop as the board of directors will be doing weirdly well, but be out of the reach of the DoJ.

        • Ranked Choice voting, fixed that for ya.
      4. This one I have mixed feelings on. The spirit of the filibuster is good. Its purpose is to allow a minority, or even a single legislator, who feels so strongly about a proposed law to actually fight it. This purpose has been perverted, obviously, but that purpose is important for a truely functioning democracy. The ability for someone who actually sees something nobody else does to pump the brakes is vital. That said, I do believe there need to be severe consequences to doing what is effectively trying to break the legislative process over your knee. Personally, I believe that it should be the nuclear option. If you break that glass, you nuke your whole career in the process. No person who utilizes the filibuster is allowed to hold ANY public office for the rest of their life. Anyone who signs on as a supporter is allowed to hold federal office. Period. If you feel SO strongly that the passing of a law is either abhorrent to your beliefs or is fundamentally flawed in a way that will forever scar our way of life that you feel it is necessary to pull the emergency cord, then you need to have that cord available.

      5. Yeah, and voting is mandatory. I’m not sure if I would allow abstention, but your ass has to mark something down for sure.

      6. I hate that this has to be listed as well. 😮‍💨

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago
        1. fair point, agreed. I typically like things that move with changing times so the same logic works in 100, 200 years. Ages are more static than dollar amounts. Not tying the gas tax or minimum wage to inflation or cost of living has put us in a major bind, which is what I was thinking about.

        2. Let them play that game (and hopefully get caught). Better than the in-the-open shit they do now. At least try

        3. I’d rather it not specify so we can play around changing it with laws instead of having it hard coded in the constitution. There are ones that I like even more than straight ranked choice. Just get rid of the EC, though maybe just dictating ranked choice would be the right move.

      • tea@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        7 days ago

        This is a “should happen” list not a “will happen” or “could happen” list. No delusions here, just felt good to say it out loud, given today’s news. I’d also take that unicorn. My kids would go bananas.

    • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Maybe…Congress has impeached one Supreme Court Justice in history, Constitution Article 2, Section 4..

      The Article itself stays within the scope of the Executive Branch but the Section itself just says:

      The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

      Likely, if Congress tried, it would be argued that the scope is only the Executive Branch.

      Article 3’s scope is the Judicial branch but says in Section 1:

      The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

      However, Samuel Chase who was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice by George Washington and confirmed by the Senate was impeached by Congress in 1804, and other federal judges (some having life-time appointments apparently) were dissolved.

      Samuel Chase ultimately was acquitted by the Senate in 1805 however.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Article 2, section 4 clear says “and all civil officers.” It specifies president and vice president likely because they were getting away from a monarchy and wanted to specify they aren’t above the law, but it clearly should apply to any federal civil officers.

        Does this actually matter if the Supreme Court is ruling in the constitutionality of how accountable they are to other’s power? Probably not. This supreme court at least will always argue in favor of serving themselves. I don’t know how that plays out at that point.

      • repungnant_canary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        Who would decide tho who can impeach Supreme Court Justice? Because it can’t be SCOTUS as that would be deciding in your own case and you guys also don’t have a separate constitutional tribunal

    • dirtbiker509@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Voting gives us no control with the current party system. We need ranked choice voting, end campaigns and advertising. Only 1 website will have the candidates and their platforms, tax funded only, anyone who wants to run can run and ranked choice voting will make the actual most popular acceptable candidate win.

      • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yes, but until we have rcv, we make do with the system we have, flaws and all. Unless you’re suggesting we don’t vote at all because we are unhappy with the system…?

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      People have been saying that for years. Why not make voting something we don’t need to get out to do though? I think it’s ridiculous and frankly anti-democratic to only count votes from people that travel to a polling station in the 21st century.

    • John_McMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      the democrats literally cancelled their effective primary and selected Biden. Remember Tulsi Gabbard? They won’t let her run cause she’d fucking win, same as Sanders. It’s a one party state, and it’s not subtle

      • Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        That’s simply not true, Tulsi Gabbard had the opportunity to submit her name to the primary election after getting enough signatures just like Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson did.

        She didn’t even do that, the most basic step of trying to become president, I wouldn’t blame the DNC for her not bothering with the basics.

  • AuroraZzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    7 days ago

    The president should just get rid of the supreme court justices he doesn’t want. He can legally do that now bc of the supreme court

      • bradinutah@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        “Sorry, Mrs. Thomas, but your trip on the billionaire’s super yacht has been cancelled and you and your husband are coming with us–by official act and order of King Joe.”

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    7 days ago

    They should not only be impeached, but charged with 340 million counts of violating the civil rights of the American people (multiplied by dozens of rulings). Life in prison for those criminals.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    You go get 'em, AOC. Personally, I’d like to see the Declaration of Independence rewritten so that it doesn’t give this false impression about our form of government and kings.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    7 days ago

    It has become a necessity at this point. That is, if anyone wants to maintain any semblance of sanity