Well shit, I’m open to being his vice president too. Why wouldn’t anyone take the job? Now that being president surrounds you with a bubble of legal immunity, the vice president is free to grant himself a good old fashioned Klingon promotion. Stab him in the neck with a pen, sign some papers with his blood in an official act, and all the evidence is inadmissible.

Now I want to see the Amish and the Romans trying to out-build each other on a battlefield.

If you have a majority on the court that takes this disastrous decision as seriously as they should and are ready to overturn it, then it’s fairly easy to get the case to happen. You just need to have a sitting president tell the justice department to bring a case against him. Doesn’t have to be for anything big, just literally any criminal offense that can be brought to trial and appealed. He can even appeal directly to the supreme court and ask that they expedite the appeal. They hear the appeal, issue a ruling, and the precedent is gone.

This from the same legal team that successfully argued that the president is above the law, including having the ability to assassinate his political opponents.

4x games tend to be functionally infinitely repayable, since a single game often takes an eternity and there are usually many factions to play.

I particularly like sword of the stars 1 & 2. Honestly don’t remember which I preferred but I know I got an insane amount of time sunk into both of them.

Saving time by reusing the same headline week after week.

They have 86 million people just giving them piles of money. They use that money to lend and invest and then reap all the profits. They incentivize those people to take loans from them and get credit cards through them, because when you already have millions of people entrusting you with their life savings, it’s easy to upsell them.

And now, just because they have caps on their bullshit fees, they want to charge people for the privilege of handing over all that free money? Fucking genius right there. No way that will backfire.

Banks are awful, find a credit union, never deal with this kind of bullshit again (probably).

There’s only two routes to getting this undone. One is a constitutional amendment, the other is for the Court to get several justices who are eager to overturn this decision, and then bring a case to trial specifically to address this issue.

I can’t think of an amendment that would likely have a broader appeal than one that says presidents aren’t kings and aren’t above the law. But even so, I can’t see it getting passed any time soon, given the overwhelming bipartisan support it would need. Personally, I’d like to see this done anyway, if only so that we could also include a provision stating that a president can’t pardon himself, and can’t pardon crimes that he ordered.

By comparison, it seems a lot easier to change the balance on the court, since one way or another it will be changed over time. And assuming we reach a point where we can be confident that the majority is ready to completely erase this ruling, then you just need to bring a case against a former president.

One could wait for such a case to arise organically, but that’s leaving a lot to chance. You need a former president to have allegedly committed a crime, you need a evidence enough to bring a case, you need to go through the appeals process, they need to try to use presidential immunity, and then it needs to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Any number of things could go wrong, and there could be political fallout. If there’s a serious enough situation that requires this, by all means, go after them and make this an issue in the case so that it has to get appealed. Worst case scenario, they get away with something they would have gotten away with anyway.

Personally, if I were president and had shifted the balance of the court back to one that respects the rule of law, I’d probably tell the justice department to bring a case against me, appeal to the Supreme Court, ask that they expedite the appeal, and then they can completely reverse this insane precedent. It would all be contrived, but that’s hardly anything new. I would make sure that anyone I appointed to the Court was down with a plan like this, If they won’t do that much to safeguard the country, the constitution, and rule of law, they can’t be trusted with the responsibility of being on the Supreme Court.

No one’s trying to put terraforming Venus into next year’s budget. This is all theoretical talk about what would be possible to do some day.

The cost of terraforming Venus would be large, but the benefits of having a second habitable planet are also quite large. Even ignoring the benefits of having more land and resources, there’s also the just the fact that being on two planets means we can potentially survive as a species if something happens to one of them.

It would also have to be heavily automated, and only really becomes realistic once you have machines that are essentially self-sufficient at which point the concept of “cost” becomes a lot fuzzier. It would mean dedicating resources, but you aren’t paying an army of self-replicating robots.

However, the sheer scale of the task means that the benefits would only be seen many generations later. It would require extreme efficiency and long term planning with little tolerance for error. The kind of people who would make such an investment are unlikely to just hand the money over to the shadiest billionaire they can find. And it would be difficult to keep a scam going if they need to show continual progress decade after decade.

Maybe we’ll never see enough progress to overcome the kind of greed and short term thinking that would doom a huge, world-altering endeavor like this. But if that’s the case, it’s more likely that we’d just never try. All the more reason to keep pointing out what could be instead of just accepting the shittiness that we see today.

I’m on a keto diet right now, and while keto bread is an amazing innovation that’s made it much easier than the last time I did this, I have to keep that shit in the freezer because it seems to get moldy a lot faster than normal bread, often well before the expiration date.

Why not both?

Although Mars is still a terrible candidate for terraforming. It’s at the outer edge of the goldilocks zone, and even if you can solve the temperature, radiation, and atmosphere issues to create a viable ecosystem, it’s still going to cause problems for humans thanks to the low gravity.

Venus on the other hand could realistically function as a second earth if we clean up the atmosphere.

Farscape is a very soft sci-fi, but it has a mostly consistent world that mostly follows its internal logic. It has muppet aliens and the supernatural along side more traditional TV space tropes, but the narrative makes sense as presented, and it doesn’t do much to hurt your suspension of disbelief.

Doctor Who is the opposite of consistent. It makes shit up as it goes along and isn’t even consistent in the kind of bullshit it’s throwing at you. It can be tropey nonsense, comedy overriding reality, fairy tale reasoning that breaks down when you try to think about it to much, or whatever other idiocy it feels like being today. Instead of building a world that you can understand, it basically just says “don’t worry about it, assume we already did the boring set up stuff, and just run with the fact that plastic can be alive and chasing after people because that’s what we’re doing this week.”

Absolutely. We can’t tolerate that kind shitty behavior and inappropriate language. Thanks for keeping it classy Fuckfuckmyfuckingass@lemmy.world

I hope he gets on a private jet with 5 other justices and some of his billionaire buddies for a trip to some tropical resort only for the plane to get shot down through a president’s official act suddenly go down, totally unexpectedly.

The ruling wasn’t just that you can’t charge the president with crimes related official acts. It also said that you can’t use official acts as evidence. Since the case included evidence from the time when Trump was president, they want it thrown out because apparently that shouldn’t be admissible because fuck you.

Crazy that we didn’t have this already.

Also, how long before a Texas Judge overrules it thanks to Chevron being overturned?

There are also some Republicans that will state they don’t like the ruling but are also too afraid of the loss of their seat to actually do anything for the country the swore to protect.

Any Republican that supports impeaching a right wing Supreme Court justice (let alone 6 of them) is going to be committing career suicide. It would be handing vacancies to the Democrats to fill, and potentially locking in a left leaning court for decades.

Now, obviously they should be able to put the good of the country and the rule of law above things like partisan politics and their prospects for re-election. But we’ve already had several rounds of purges on the right that have wiped out anyone with principles or conscience since those things get in the way of being blindly loyal to Trump.

The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.

Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It’s a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.

This decision so blatantly ignores the constitution, history, tradition, case law, and all available evidence, that I have to question why they even bothered writing such a long decision. They might as well have just said “Fuck it, we say Trump is immune. Eat shit America, we can do whatever we want.”

I had felt the same way, until they ruled that partisan gerrymandering is constitutionally protected, that racial gerrymandering can only be unconstitutional if it doesn’t provide a partisan advantage to one side, and that the court must assume that legislators are acting in good faith because their need to not be embarrassed outweighs the constitutional rights of the people and the need for honest elections. I read that decision and said “shit, they’re gonna rule that Trump’s immune.”

I never thought the Court would put out a decision that could rival Dred Scott for worst in history, but these asshole’s have put out multiple contenders for that title in a single term.