So all that stuff about the independence and integrity of the court was just big talk? Figures. I'm surprised his robes stay on his body at all with a spine like that.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
320 points (98.5% liked)
News
23296 readers
3519 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What?
They meant what they said.
They don't want any oversight and all the justices agree that they should be above every law.
You're confusing that being their ethics, with what an average non power crazed person who hasn't already obtained the highest standing in our legal system and is completely free of any consequences from their actions.
Why would anyone with the drive (or love of beer) to make it to the supreme Court would ever want to lower the amount of power they have?
Even RBG refused to step down when it was best for the country, because she believed she was that much better than any possible replacement.
That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won't stay well adjusted for long.
It's why the whole lifetime appointment thing needs thrown out the window.
That much power fucks with your head, even if a well adjusted person manages to make it to that position, they won’t stay well adjusted for long.
Neuroscience supports this. Giving someone power causes changes in your brain that makes your brain less capable of empathy, closer to the brain of someone born with psychopathy.
https://www.npr.org/2013/08/10/210686255/a-sense-of-power-can-do-a-number-on-your-brain
https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/how-power-erodes-empathy-and-steps-we-can-take-rebuild-it
https://hbr.org/2015/04/becoming-powerful-makes-you-less-empathetic
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-empathy/201909/power-blocks-empathy
https://www.livescience.com/1128-mere-thought-money-people-selfish.html
Saving these for when someone goes "but no rulers means no one to protect you!!"
Across time, space and cultures, to be ruled is to be ruled by villains.
"That time I got reincarnated as a Supreme Court Chief Justice"
Eh, change the channel. I'm sick of Isekai.
Stuff the fucking courts. Their "legitimacy" is completely fucking lost so we should at least have a good illegitimate court - right now we've got the worst of both worlds.. the court is illegitimate and it is sucking away our rights.
Way ahead of you, jack, Biden admin has confirmed 200 Judges and counting.
These motherfuckers forget that asking politely is the compromise that benefits them the most. When it doesn't work, people look for other ways to depose with tyrants.
It's good form to ask politely first. What comes next had better be good, though.
The senate does have the authority to remove justices, they just need some 17 Republicans to notice their ship is sinking.
Easier to find 17 who can be bought for less than the cost of losing this republic
Murder you say? Nay, good sir, I decline your invitation to jail, and reject your offer to appear in court.
So, checks and balances are officially bullshit, eh? If they won’t allow themselves to be checked, then the other branches must balance them. That’s why we have co-equal branches.
These 9 people are supposed to understand the constitution better than anyone, it’s their whole freaking job. It’s clear that they’re high on their own power. This isn’t the first time the chief justice has refused a request from congress.
No, the check and balance of Congress impeaching a justice is still valid.
I'll say it again: since the SCOTUS intends to slow-walk a decision on presidential 'absolute immunity', Biden needs to announce RIGHT NOW that he's dissolving the SCOTUS effective 2 weeks from the time of the announcement, at midnight, intending to appoint an all-new roster of his choosing, as well as replacing all state-level judges, also of his administration's choosing.
If the SCOTUS, on the other hand, suddenly finds they do have the time to make a decision on presidential immunity before that deadline, well maybe Biden won't do it, after all.
While the president can't dissolve the court, according to the majority, the president can order them assassinated and be covered by presidential immunity.
There hasn't been an opinion dropped on Trump V. US yet. The arguments were only just over a month ago.
Exactly. Maybe I didn't propose the "right" action -- the entire point is that if the SCOTUS won't rule a president does not have absolute immunity, and is subject to the law of the land, then really ANYTHING is possible isn't it?
This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of US governance. The President can't dissolve SCOTUS. He hasn't been granted that power.
No, but if he the president does have absolute immunity Biden could just have seal team 6 kill Trump and some of the justices.
Not that he would, but imagined the surprised Pikachu face on the GOP if Biden called their bullshit.
Exactly. The Democratic party needs to push the issue and make the GOP see that the Leopards can eat their face too.
But Trump is currently asserting in court that he does have that power! Absolute immunity remember? Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS? He has absolute immunity, remember? That means he has absolute power to do anything!
What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now. Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?
Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?
Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn't have any power not explicitly granted to them.
What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.
It not a bluff it's an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn't set up terrible case law for future generations.
Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?
You're operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don't believe he does. As I said, the case hasn't had an opinion. And I didn't mention it previously but the state judge thing you'd mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
Article 2 is the bit to read.
I would like to say, for the record, that I wrote that late at night, and my phrasing probably came across incorrectly.
It wasn't my intention to call you personally 'a peon'. I was trying more to adopt the voice, for argument's sake, of what an imagined President, using this supposed absolute immunity, might say to their critics -- 'who are you (out there, the people) to question my power?'
My apologies for it coming out the way it did.
I wasn't taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.
As it should be! I hope in the long-term, that is proven to be true.
Deal with it like you do with all unwanted institutions. Kill their budget and see how long before they're willing to talk.
I thought their budget was just people participating in their court cases who choose to give them "gifts as friends".
And RVs
HOW CAN I FUEL MY MOTOR COACH NOW?!?
It runs on thoughts and prayers
it’s time he faces a mob
He rejected my invitation to brunch too, fuck this guy!
That brunch was delightful. He didn't know what he missed.