• foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Well to be fair, it’d be King Biden.

    Just a far less scary king who might even work to unking himself.

    Or something idk.

    This shits scary.

    • xenomor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      4 months ago

      Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we’ve already seen how hard that is.

        Of course, when Trump’s second impeachment didn’t stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said “Sike! Congress needed to act all along”.

        Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Mueller: “I can’t do it. Congress should handle it.”

          Congress: “We can’t do it. The Court should handle it.”

          Supreme Court: “Nah.”

        • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          4 months ago

          one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts.

          The courts that they knew they had stacked in their favor. That was always an intentional copout.

      • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Watching a panel of news anchors discuss this today, I was struck by the ashen looks on their faces. As if they had today witnessed a mortal wound to the nation.

    • bizarroland@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t know. Something tells me that they don’t have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don’t personally support.

      I’m getting more of a “rules for thee but not for me” vibe but from the supreme Court

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s not in human nature to limit your own power. I’m voting for Biden, for his appointments and admin, I have nothing against him, but my experience is that no one relinquishes power. Once the office has the power, no one’s going to let it go.