resist any draconian measures
Really bro.
I bet you wore a mask and took a dozen jabs during that pandemic and like being a sheep.
Comment on US Democracy
Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Not that I’m advocating for it, but it’s completely legal for Biden to order the assassination of Trump and Vance. So yeah, US democracy is dead.
I hope the American people will resist any draconian measures there are bound to be, whether with civil unrest or other forms of protest.
thecam@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
No it isn’t and it never was.
Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Ok correction, it’s not legal, the president can just never be punished for it, as he is immune in order to act swiftly and boldly or whatever the fuck the SC came up with as an excuse to make America a Christo-Fascist state.
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Not true, the Supreme Court decides it on a case by case basis. And murder of a political opponent would land Biden in jail faster than you can say “one Missisipi”. And rightfully so. That’s why he didn’t do anything of the sort - because he is not a criminal.
explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
With just a couple more assassinations, they might be more cooperative!
Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 1 week ago
I’m not saying that he should be doing it or that it makes sense. But no, it is very clear from the decision that he would be immune. He has absolute immunity for core powers and presumed immunity for all official acts, which the court left very vague, but didn’t deny would include assassinating political opponents. The dissenting opinion made it very clear that this was the case.
With that said, in some way you are right. If Biden did it, it would be appealed and the SC would rule that in this specific case he isn’t immune, whereas if Trump did the same, it would be appealed and they would rule that he is immune. Because the SC is corrupt and doesn’t care about precedent.
Soulg@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
Supreme court said it was if it’s an official act
ShrimpCurler@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Yeah, but who decides what’s an official act? I think that ruling was only ever meant to benefit republicans
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
The Supreme Court does, he just said that
Maalus@lemmy.world 1 week ago
An assassination isn’t “an official act”, plain and simple. The Supreme Court ruled on one specific case. They allowed it then. A different case could be ruled illegal. Which it would 100% be done, be it a republican court, a democratic court, or some magical unbiased one from fairy land.
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 week ago
That isn’t how the Supreme Court works. An insurrection isn’t an ‘official act’ either btw but here we are. I recommend you look into court precedent.