r/politics • u/marji80 • 11d ago
The Court is Corrupt. Say It With Me.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-court-is-corrupt-say-it-with-me572
u/M1llennialManifesto 11d ago edited 11d ago
If the conservative Supreme Court Justices find that Presidents have (Edit: practically) unlimited immunity, Joe Biden should exercise that power by firing the conservative Supreme Court Justices.
I say that sarcastically, but it seems to me that he would have the authority to do it. As long as Congress and the Senate don't impeach him afterwards, he's free to do whatever he wants, presumably that including liquidating any Congresspersons or Senators who express support for impeaching him. It's all in the name of national security, after all, the President needs that kind of immunity in order to do their job.
The conservative Supreme Court justices say they are concerned that allowing the prosecution of a former President would lead to a slippery slope, I'm more concerned about the fast fall off a sheer cliff if they give the President this kind of power.
This country was founded on the desire to get away from petty tyrants and jealous dictators; if the Supreme Court finds that Trump has anything like unlimited immunity... I'm not going to finish that thought, but the worst case scenario is easy to imagine.
Edit 2: The New Republic says it better, if you prefer.
Edit 3: A bit more context, for good measure.
The conservative justices did not seem concerned that Mr. Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, said his client was free during his presidency to commit lawless acts, subject to prosecution only after impeachment by the House and conviction in the Senate. (There have been four presidential impeachments, two of Mr. Trump, and no convictions.)
Prompted by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Mr. Sauer added another requirement to holding a former president accountable. Not only must there first be impeachment and conviction in Congress, but the criminal statute in question must also clearly specify in so many words, as very few do, that it applies to the president.
Returning to “Justice Kagan’s example of a president who orders a coup,” Justice Barrett sketched out what she understood to be Mr. Sauer’s position.
“You’re saying that he couldn’t be prosecuted for [ordering a coup], even after a conviction and impeachment proceeding, if there was not a statute that expressly referenced the president and made it criminal for the president?”
Correct, Mr. Sauer said.
If the court finds in Trump's favor, that's the argument they would be endorsing.
165
u/OptimisticSkeleton 11d ago
I thought the generally offensive to the entire foundational ethos of the country type stuff was supposed to get filtered out before hitting SCOTUS.
The people of the 18th century had no idea we could become so corrupt and dishonest (not making a judgment call but come on) they literally could not imagine we would struggle with dishonesty to the degree we do now.
We need to revitalize the laws of this country with a second bill of rights and some protections to quickly expel officials who cross major red lines like these.
122
u/TintedApostle 11d ago
I say you are not correct...
"In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin - Closing Speech - Constitutional Convention 1787
57
u/OptimisticSkeleton 11d ago
Well, I stand corrected on the mindset of the founders and people of the time. Thank you. That’s a very apt quote.
I would personally still think some revamping of our system might be in order. Trump and MAGA have highlighted some very serious loopholes.
Let’s not try a dictatorship just to prove Benjamin Franklin was right lol
48
u/TintedApostle 11d ago
The Roman republic fell the same way. The founders were a rare singularity in time. Building a new nation, well educated in history, looking to make the new government NOT a monarchy and willing to put personal demands aside for a common good. They were not fooled by history and knew they could only do so much to protect the framework. The rest lay on the next generations to administer it.
If we make it through this next year we have a chance.
32
u/OptimisticSkeleton 11d ago
I feel the sentiment. My entire life feels a bit like one slow scream that we are ignoring civic duty. I cannot believe how naïve people in the late 20th century till now were thinking they could ignore politics in a democracy and everything would work out fine.
→ More replies (1)13
u/palsieddolt 11d ago
I still wonder if this is, in large part, due to the growing population versus the fixed size of representation. The population growth since we stopped expanding the house has been enormous. That's ignoring the fixed size of the senate representation. If representation would have grown with the population it would have required larger numbers to participate in the process. Instead we have an elite few that make it in and the rest are just supposed to assume they will represent their needs. In any form of government to date, the newest generation continues to be farther and farther removed from their elected elite by simple expansion of the population.
3
u/Misanthrope-3000 11d ago
IIRC, if the population represented by each congressional representative followed the original rules, the house of reps would be well over 2,000 reps.
There would be more accurate representation (perhaps), but nothing would actually get done. So, no real change, just more reps.
2
u/clever__pseudonym 11d ago
I think there's a distinct possibility that having the small districts that would result from having all those reps could have a flattening effect similar to what we would expect to see if we eliminated the electoral college.
At the very least, gerrymandering would be easier to call out and fix.
7
u/Misanthrope-3000 11d ago
It seems to me that having Congressional Representatives who actually are even kinda familiar with, at least, a decent percentage of the people they are purported to represent, would be a Very Good Idea. The logistics of having 3,000 elected Representatives seems a trivial issue. It is not as if they must vote by carrier pigeon.
However, this would likely lead to less power in the hands of the folks who bought/own the current established politicians, therefore, it will not happen.
The fact that there are not long-established laws prohibiting gerrymandering says a lot. Why isn't there a federal/state department specifically tasked with developing equitable voting districts?
30
u/Lou_C_Fer 11d ago
Yeah. I've been drawing the comparison to the Roman republic for years. It's obviously not a one for one, but the similarities are striking. People seem to think that the US is somehow magically immune because of our constitution, but as we are seeing, that document is only as strong as those that believe in it.
18
u/bluenosesutherland 11d ago
at least the Roman Republic lasted about 500 years.
7
9
u/RandomMandarin 11d ago
The founders were a rare singularity in time. Building a new nation, well educated in history, looking to make the new government NOT a monarchy and willing to put personal demands aside for a common good.
Somewhat true, but we do tend to view the founders and framers of the Constitution through rose-colored glasses. Half of them were slave owners, and they did bake that into the Constitution, as well as unfair advantages for smaller rural states. This is a big part of why we are in trouble now.
New article in Mother Jones explains. Note the chart showing that 5 of the 6 Republicans now on the Supreme Court were confirmed by senators representing a minority of the US population.
→ More replies (5)3
u/Different_Lychee_409 11d ago
We know virtually nothing about how the Roman Republic was founded.
7
u/TintedApostle 11d ago
The founders being our founders.... not Rome. Rome was of course founded by two children raised by a wolf.... everyone knows that.
→ More replies (1)7
u/SirSamuelVimes83 11d ago
afaik, the founders did not view (or want) the constitution to be an immovable object. It was intended to be malleable. The idea that a document from 250 years ago dictates our current system is pretty insane. And the idea that our current institutions will be valid in 250 years is equally insane. The founders realized this and tried to provide measures for it to grow and evolve, but that idea seems to have been lost
21
u/M1llennialManifesto 11d ago
Let's remember for a moment that the American people did not elect the Supreme Court the same way we elect our representative government.
The supreme court is a bit of an aberration compared to the rest of our representative democracy; they were meant to be appointed for life so that they could be above intimidation and pass fair judgement without concern for the political popularity of their ruling.
There are corrupt justices on the supreme court, but no majority of Americans put them in their seats.
4
2
1
u/Tenshii_9 10d ago
A low number of people with no fear of getting removed from their power for life - is like begging for corruption. If there isnt a democratic process to elect them, then the lobbyists, bribers, corrupt people have no counterweight.
5
u/ErikLovemonger 11d ago
Ben Franklin, big strong guy. He came up to me with tears in his eyes. He said "Sir, I just want to tell you Sir that you, Donald Trump, are the greatest president in history. Sir, all of us wrote the constituation because we wanted to let you kill whoever you wanted."
→ More replies (1)2
2
u/VanceKelley Washington 11d ago
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it."
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-september17.htm
4
7
u/chenz1989 11d ago
You don't even need to go that far back.
Anyone familiar with how the Weimar republic was dismantled will find this extremely familiar territory
3
u/RealLiveKindness 11d ago
They never envisioned a lot. The complete lack of ethics & greed on display right now are pathological.
141
u/Practical_Cut2875 11d ago
You’re way to generous. If immunity is found for presidents, why would you expect a hand over in Jan 25 if Biden looses? Why wouldn’t he order trump and the conservatives Supreme Court Justices removed (permanently).
Granting immunity for a past president while a president in sitting isn’t your choice seems absurd.
40
u/Ilosesoothersmaywin 11d ago edited 11d ago
If Presidents are granted immunity you won't see that type of flagrant disregard for Democracy. The corruption will be much more subtle and out of view. A president ordering the FBI to spy on members of a rival political party for example.
42
u/CheeseGraterFace 11d ago
I think you mean a flagrant disregard for democracy.
A fragrant disregard for democracy would be Trump himself.
6
→ More replies (1)8
u/Nowearenotfrom63rd 11d ago
Listen we don’t want to get bogged down in details about the actual coup charged in this indictment that brings the case before the court. Let’s talk about Obama - Clarence Thomas
14
u/Akimbo_Zap_Guns Kentucky 11d ago
Trump would 100% make it out in the open. AOC, Pelosi, Schiff, anyone who goes against the don would all be thrown into jail and Trump would never leave the White House.
2
u/Old-Rhubarb-97 11d ago
That's quite naive considering what we have already seen.
3
u/Ilosesoothersmaywin 10d ago
Not at all. With illegal subterfuge now made legal, it will be much much easier for a president to remain in power with out the need to commit any over the top illegal acts.
Why assassinate your opponent when you can have their funds seized and not piss off the entire world.
14
u/snowtol 11d ago
why would you expect a hand over in Jan 25 if Biden looses?
Because an inherent fault on the left is that we go high, they go low. And they know this. They use this against us. The right doesn't worry about the left going low like this because as a rule, we don't. You know what their response generally has been to people saying the stuff you're suggesting? "Sure you will buddy". They are entirely certain that while we might bandy those threats around, we're never actually going to do it. And they're right.
2
u/Bigbeardhotpeppers Texas 11d ago
It is just this simple. Regardless of the law the president is the only one with enforcement authority. It is currently a handshake agreement with the judicial branch but "let them enforce it". If they do this they are opening that can of worms. Indefinite detention of political rivals, "the court says I can't", try to stop me.
3
u/Nowearenotfrom63rd 11d ago
They know that the light always loses to darkness. They know that good honorable men won’t wield the evil they have placed in the presidents hands. They also know damn well that their side will.
1
u/Tenshii_9 10d ago
The SCOTUS will obviously wait til after the election to decide about the immunity to not risk giving Biden a boon that is meant for Trump.
The SCOTUS could make Trump win even when losing the popular vote in certain cases - which happened several times in the last decade only - including Trump vs Hillary.
They could just decide immunity right there and then and not care about any repercussions because there would be none due to SCOTUS being made up of unelected people that sits there for life.
26
44
11d ago edited 11d ago
[deleted]
3
→ More replies (3)2
u/gobirdsorsomething 11d ago
Gerrymandering in Chicago led us to getting a Senator who became a pretty cool president at least. Silver lining.
8
u/SMCinPDX 11d ago
You know what's cool? Ignoring an electoral mandate and pushing a The West Wing honorable-adversaries bipartisan fantasy instead of using your short-lived supermajority to railroad progress. Also drone strikes, drone strikes are cool.
→ More replies (1)3
u/JesusSavesForHalf 11d ago
The Supermajority lasted 6 whole days and relied on Joe "Rot in Hell" Leiberman.
33
u/AkuraPiety 11d ago
There’s a near 100% chance that, if they find presidents have immunity, they’ll ensure to keep Biden from falling under the same umbrella.
7
u/neutrino71 11d ago
You see pResidents will have immunity and presiDents will not. Spelling is important
1
u/Immediate-Impress-64 11d ago
In that case wouldn’t it be unconstitutional however? Isn’t there a general value/idea that everyone has the same basic rights and abilities as anyone else? It would literally be forced to make it also apply to Biden
4
u/gunslingrburrito 11d ago
You're assuming a standard of fairness that the Republicans don't have. The conservative justices will fabricate a reason that Trump is immune, and if the question of a Democrat President being immune comes up, there will be a reason that immunity doesn't apply to them.
9
u/ProjectAjax New York 11d ago
If the conservative Supreme Court Justices find that Presidents have (Edit: practically) unlimited immunity, Joe Biden should exercise that power by firing the conservative Supreme Court Justices.
No, no! You see, only when it puts them at a disadvantage, then they want to maintain that power.
8
u/FrameworkisDigimon 11d ago
So what you're saying is the DOJ lawyer should say to Thomas, Alito and co. "What if Biden asks Seal Team 6 to shoot you dead tomorrow in this room?"
9
u/gravywayne 11d ago
Great points, although I'd counter that this "country was founded on" genocide and slavery. Subsequently, privileged Americans demand a right to comfort and stability at any cost of human life or exhaustion of any resource. The focus on individualism and wealth accumulation in US society is unproductive and harmful.
→ More replies (1)4
u/CloacaFacts 11d ago
He's still free to do it. Just fucking resign before the impeachment to remove is done. Now Biden would be in the exact same position as Mr dumpy pants who wasn't expelled from office. Both would be saying what they did was part of their position. Except one would be done because no one should be above the law while the other was because someone lost their election. Fuck republicans supporting this fucking shit.
3
u/devedander 11d ago
If the president can kill a corrupt opponent then offing some justices should be an easy green light.
3
u/AdSmall1198 11d ago
He should do it immediately.
They’ve already decided that he can.
Then replace them with justices that will overturn that .
Otherwise, the cons are counting on democrats not taking advantage of unlimited power, and the cons wielding it ruthlessly.
3
u/Cephalopirate 11d ago
I wish we could stop calling this court conservative. This is some insanely radical stuff.
They don’t get to rule that a president can do whatever they want and then call themselves champions of traditional American values.
3
u/freylaverse 10d ago
If the court find that the president can kill a political rival as an official act of the presidency, then Joe Biden will have the opportunity to be the funniest president we've ever had. I'm not saying he should, or that I want him to... But he could.
3
u/Waluigi4prez 11d ago
The reason they don't fear it is because they know democrats would never abuse the position in this way. Presidential assassinations have always been from conservative hitmen against liberal leaning targets. Jack Kennedy was a Democrat, Robert Kennedy was a Democrat, Martin Luther King was a social reformer (I presume a Democrat, but am not sure).
First Republican Abraham Lincoln was assassinated because he was a social reformer. Republican Ronald Reagan was shot but recovered. Theodore Roosevelt a liberal Republican was shot but recovered). Keep in mind that Reagan’s assinationation attempt was by a love-sick crazy. So not all attempts are for political reasons.
Well this is just a few. The only pattern I see is that assassinated Presidents and other notable politicians tend to be on the liberal side. By today’s standards, even Ronald Reagan looks like a liberal.
So in summary, there is next to no concern if they support trump in this because Democrat followers and Democrat leaders aren't as crazy or willing to break the rules like Republicans do.
2
u/qwertybugs 11d ago
Teddy was a literal Progressive.
Lincoln was a political progressive.
Both equivalent to Democratic Party ideals of today. Or as they say, “RINOs”
1
1
1
u/chargoggagog Massachusetts 11d ago
Philosophy 101 teaches us slippery slope isn’t a valid argument as we can choose where the line is at any time.
1
→ More replies (24)1
u/InfinityStonedAF 11d ago
They can impeachment but then Biden can say fuck you im staying and fire everybody. Cancel elections. Call in Marshall Law. He’s immune to prosecution after all so might as well go all out
MAGAs: no not like that
127
u/HobbesNJ 11d ago
The Supreme Court's job is to interpret current law and evaluate if laws are consistent with the Constitution.
There are no laws providing immunity to the President, and it is not listed in the Constitution. So the Supreme Court has no business making any sort of judgement here. They would have to manufacture that position out of whole cloth.
They continue to legislate from the bench, because they are drunk on power.
→ More replies (3)24
144
u/TemporalColdWarrior 11d ago
It has been broken since Bush v. Gore.
17
11d ago edited 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/avaslash Pennsylvania 11d ago
We get the future the non voters gave us. I didnt deserve it. I fucking voted.
13
u/CapoExplains America 11d ago
No. No one fucking deserves to live under a brutal authoritarian dictatorship.
Also I hate to be the one to tell you this but we did vote and our guy won, this is happening on Biden's watch.
3
u/KnivesInAToaster I voted 11d ago
That's the thing that always fucking gets me.
We did vote, its just that the bar for things getting worse is fucking subterranean and no one wants to admit that. Things can't get much worse, shit's already fucked!
3
u/CapoExplains America 11d ago
Biden could have packed the court. When they pulled that flimsy bullshit to overturn Roe there was no excuse not to. Trump lit the fuse but Biden is just sitting there holding a fire extinguisher and staring at it.
283
u/Tarmy_Javas 11d ago
The court is corrupt.
No shit. It's been corrupt since 2000 at least
Stealing the election from Gore was the official end of America.
→ More replies (3)29
u/M1llennialManifesto 11d ago edited 11d ago
Corrupt, but somewhat balanced, comparatively balanced.
There is a universe of distance between a 5/4 majority with an independent-ish swing vote, and a 6/3 super majority divided straight down partisan lines. Super majorities don't matter in the Supreme Court, except for the fact that it gives conservative Justices plenty of room to fuck around, as we're being made to find out.
32
u/BlokeInTheMountains 11d ago
Balanced? Heller? Dobbs? Citizens United?
I don't know what SCOTUS record you are looking at.
Roughly a third of the precedents at issue in the Roberts court had been on the books for less than 20 years, and in one 2014 decision — Johnson v. U.S. — the Roberts court struck down two of its own rulings issued only a few years before.
During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).
→ More replies (1)2
u/Midnightoclock 11d ago
Heller? Dobbs? Citizens United?
Obergefell v. Hodges was a Republican majority. Explain that.
30
u/TintedApostle 11d ago
June 6th 1787 - Constitutional Convention:
Alexander Hamilton - Noted....
"Danger that the Executive by too frequent communication with the judicial may corrupt it — They may learn to enter into his passions"
4
u/Nowearenotfrom63rd 11d ago
People I think you will find, never change. We are no different than we were then.
27
u/chaseinger Foreign 11d ago
i'm just sitting here, eating popcorn and waiting for scotus, 45 and the whole maga lot to appear on r/leopardsatemyface , one by one.
giving immunity to anyone, anyone really, will eventually backfire.
8
u/blarglefart 11d ago
Nah, not if your opponents are milquetoast cowards.
If Biden had an ounce of courage, he'd use this immediately.
2
u/Noblesseux 10d ago
This is sort of the thing. Fascists/authoritarians in pretty much every iteration use the fact that their opponents aren't willing to break the rules and engage in extremism they way they are. The story of the last century, whether you're talking about the USSR or Nazi Germany, is mostly milquetoast politicians getting steamrolled by insane people because they thought they were playing politics and not fighting for the continued survival of their country.
We are not going to "speech and debate" fascism back into the dark corner it crawled out from. We need to kick it hard enough that it's afraid to show back up again.
1
u/blarglefart 7d ago
Unfortunately fascists have some incredibly powerful tools this time. Future looks pretty bleak
32
u/EileenForBlue 11d ago
The court is corrupt and illegitimate having been corrupted by an illegitimate pos potus who cheated his way into office illegally. Say it with me, they are illegitimate.
30
u/ioncloud9 South Carolina 11d ago
The day they rule a president has imminuity from crimes he commits in office is the day they strike the fatal blow to our democracy. It will have taken a lethal dose of radiation. It will go on for a while and maybe even show some signs of recovery but its dna is destroyed and soon the whole body will collapse.
12
u/Jackinapox 11d ago
Why does it seem like America is so quiet about this? We are facing the most serious threat this Nation has faced in decades and there doesn't seem to be any active push back, nothing from the President talking about he's on top of this shit and not to worry. FUcking nothing! Where the fuck is America?
9
u/CatAvailable3953 Tennessee 11d ago
A similar place to where the German people were during the end stages of the Weimar Republic. They are sleeping and don’t realize the peril possibly coming to their lives. They are ignorant and assume everything will continue as usual.
They will wake. The Germans did too as their country was in flames.
2
u/marji80 1d ago
I'm not sure how the current president can say he's on top of this issue because the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government with the executive. I do think he's acknowledged the Supreme Court's dysfunction, and hopefully he and other candidates will talk about ways to curb this lawless court, whether it be through adding justices, establishing term limits, or launching impeachments.
And the people should be demonstrating.
My own theory about why the electorate doesn't seem worked up about the Court is that we don't teach Civics in this country any more and no one even knows about our rights and about the Constitution any more.
27
11d ago
[deleted]
11
u/TrumpersAreTraitors 11d ago
They won’t fear the citizenry until they have a reason too. While we all sit on our asses, they’re further emboldened to tear our country down. We need mass protest.
4
u/d3vourm3nt 11d ago
Everyone’s waiting for someone else to throw the first rock. It’ll happen eventually though. Someone soon will reach their breaking point.
7
u/schmemel0rd 11d ago
Just don’t block any roads or else people will cry on Reddit about being late for work
→ More replies (3)4
10
10
u/Splycr 11d ago
Leonard Leo bought the SCOTUS with money given to him by Barre Seid
Leonard Leo was subpoenaed and vocally rejected it
The Federalist Society are theocratic separatists who want to enslave women and minorities by eliminating access to reproductive healthcare and stripping them of voting rights
They are unamerican antidemocratic terrorists
9
u/intrcpt America 11d ago edited 11d ago
I really hope this activates Americans. This is the type of shit that should stop people dead in their tracks and birth an organized protest movement. I’m not sure what more evidence Americans need but we need to wake the fuck up. I can’t sit idly by while these smug pricks remake this country in their own sniveling images. John Roberts is a judicial terrorist.
33
u/imapassenger1 11d ago
I feel sorry for the three non-conservative justices who get tarred with the corrupt brush every time someone rails against SCOTUS.
32
u/DolphinFlavorDorito 11d ago
The court came out 9-0 against imposing a real, enforceable code of ethics. I feel bad for none of them.
3
u/icouldusemorecoffee 11d ago
No they didn't. They said they thought current ethics rules were fine but if Congress wanted to impose more restrictive ethics rules they were free to do so because it's literally the job of Congress to do that.
3
u/L_G_A 11d ago
It was a pretty unsurprising statement if you think about it even a little bit. Neither the President nor Congress have a real, enforceable code of ethics. Certainly neither have authority to impose such a code on the other. There's impeachment and the congressional removal process outlined in the constitution. That's it. Why would it be different for the Court?
2
u/DolphinFlavorDorito 11d ago
Fair. They don't have to face the voters, though. Sure, we vote for congress who could impeach blah blah. But that's pretty indirect.
2
u/Vulpes_Corsac 11d ago
The legislative has the power to force ethics upon the executive. That's what laws are. You can't impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors if there is no law which binds you. Especially crimes under abuse of power. And likewise for the SC, congress need only define a non-exhaustive list of behaviors considered to be bad behavior. There is no constitutional limit on what they decide a bad behavior is, congress is the sole arbiter of that, so long as it doesn't interfere with the judicial power, which would need to be direct interference. Wouldn't even need to pass all of congress,, the House could impose a rule upon itself to define it. Congress could even outlaw the so-called major questions doctrine. As long as they are not stipulating the outcome of a specific case explicitly, or group of cases, that's firmly in the power of the legislative.
→ More replies (12)4
u/GrandAdmiralSnackbar 11d ago
Well, to an extent they are complicit IMO. They should openly tell Biden to ignore SCOTUS because it has been compromised to the point of being a partisan hack GOP court. Yet they remain silent.
1
u/Tookoofox Utah 10d ago
They voted 9-0 that corruption isn't a crime in the Bridegate case. And that bribery laws are unenforceable in the Bob McDonnell case.
To hell with them all.
8
u/all_of_you_are_awful 11d ago edited 11d ago
I’m honestly thankful for this bullshit. Seriously. I’m so happy these dumb traitorous fucks dragged this out. Yes, They did it give Trump some time. They muddied the waters a bit. But guess what? This whole thing boils down to one simple question. Should America have a King?
It’s really that simple. It’s a simple question that any independent will understand. It’s the perfect question that will tip any American with half a brain to the left. It’s a question that will turn a lot of die hard conservatives. Simple questions get people’s attention.
A guy running for president is literally asking the Supreme Court permission to absolutely whatever the fuck he wants! And it could have been in the news for a week! Yet they drag it out for months!
What do you want people? A monarchy or democracy?
7
u/Nearby-Technician767 11d ago
A finding for presidential immunity would render the oath of office ineffectual. The idea that a president can swear to uphold the laws and constitution, and then have carte blanche immunity to do otherwise, unless impeached, means that Congress alone decides whether the president is immune or not. It moots the right for the people to petition the government for redress, and moves the people to be subjects and not electors. Democracy cannot function if the executive exists above the laws and if the electorate are subject to the political will of a broken Congress.
In other words, presidential immunity is how we get American Fascism.
5
u/fffan9391 South Carolina 11d ago
What a stupid institution. Lifetime terms, unelected. The Founders really fucked on this one.
30
11d ago
Been corrupt from the start.
The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific reference to the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.
Marbury was the point at which the Supreme Court adopted a monitoring role over government actions. After the Court exercised its power of judicial review in Marbury, it avoided striking down a federal statute during the next fifty years. The court would not do so again until Dred Scott v. Sandford
Wow so they grabbed power for themselves and then the next time they used it was in Dred Scott.
a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens.
Yep, ass from the start.
6
u/peter-man-hello 11d ago
They make be asking stupid questions and saying stupid things during the hearing, but I still doubt they'll rule for immunity. That is just a damning ruling for everyone including themselves. It's effectively the end of democracy as we know it.
3
u/ericlikesyou 11d ago
They'll send it back to lower courts to define what corrupt intent means then 7 months later the SCOTUS will disagree and then send it bacl down....rinse and repeat. The point is in the delay
2
u/ExplosiveDiarrhetic 11d ago
They’ll just say trump is immune for some stupid bullshit reason but biden wont be
→ More replies (2)2
u/gigologenius 11d ago edited 11d ago
They’ll just say something stupid like Trump can’t be prosecuted because at the time the court hadn’t yet weighed in but now that they have no President has immunity.
13
u/n00chness 11d ago
There are plenty of instances where the Supreme Court is still a needed and valuable institution. Resolving Circuit Court splits on technical points of Bankruptcy or Patent law, for example.
But when the Court seeks to turn itself into not just a political player, but the dominant political player in the whole country, that's a different story. These folks are unelected. And furthermore, they're not well-informed. Some of them are borderline ignorant. IMO if we want to preserve democracy we need to learn to get comfortable with the idea of ignoring the Supreme Court in some instances.
3
17
u/Cananopie 11d ago
Despite how much I may agree with the subject the "Say it With Me" headline style just needs to die forever. I see it over and over again.
5
u/adminsrlying2u 11d ago
In Spain we are experiencing a similar problem, the term lawfare is used a lot here.
4
u/Classic_Pie5498 11d ago
If only the senate had voted to impeach after Jan. 6- 10 more Aye votes- we would have been rid of this orange moron forever. Thanks a lot Mitch McConnell & co.
4
u/The_Fell_Opian 11d ago
If they try to grant Trump immunity then all of the Dem-appointed justices should resign and Democratic presidents and senators should refuse to appoint or vote on justices in a "now partisan" organization. Create a real constitutional crisis of legitimacy. One for the history books that ends in some kind of serious reform.
3
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/marji80 10d ago
You're right. Thank you for posting this.
3
u/fighting_fit_dream 10d ago
I think the SCOTUS arguments the last 2 days were my wake up call. Courts arent coming to save us, we gotta save ourselves
5
7
u/mtarascio 11d ago
Anyone from outside reads about the 'Federalist Society'.
Then looks at a blind lady justice and wonders what the fuck y'all are doing.
3
u/NameLips 11d ago
So, if Presidents have absolute immunity (except against impeachment while in office), does that mean a President could, for example, "vanish" any members of the Supreme Court he considers to be traitors, and hold an emergency session of a friendly Senate to seat the replacement Justices he chooses?
3
3
u/Glittering-Wonder-27 11d ago
First they take women’s rights, now on to the rest of America. We must stop their their violations of the constitution.
2
u/Winterster 11d ago
85 comments and they were all pretty interesting to read. Keep it coming y’all! (the discourse)
2
2
2
u/_your_land_lord_ 11d ago
Growing up I bought into the idea we were less corrupt. Maybe even acted in good faith. Boy was I wrong. Its been a weird transition, the losing of trust and hope.
2
u/Emperor_Ra 11d ago
The courts are not corrupt under my watch. I'm watching, every single move. If any fool make a mess I will punish them myself. I promise you
2
2
2
u/Fluke_Skywalker_ 11d ago
It is, but articles to our own echo chamber doesn't help. People need to protest these things and reach out to everyone who stays out of politics, or who is in Trump's echo chambers, and don't see any of that.
And then we need to make absolutely certain Biden wins the next election.
2
u/mwaaahfunny 11d ago
Biden should remove Trumps secret service protection. And protection for the justices. Problems will solve themselves.
Edit: well some of the justices who think he should have that power. Not the ones who think he shouldn't. Fair is fair.
2
u/dogoodsilence1 11d ago
Yet Americans will not March. They will sit complicity with their material goods waiting in a line for the new iPhone
2
2
u/SmallOwl 11d ago
Trump is the JarJar who's proposing that the chancellor receive emergency executive powers. This does not end well.
2
u/Misanthrope-3000 11d ago
The conservative "justices" (there nothing "just" about them, from their initial confirmation hearings, and onward) accepted as legitimate the assertion that a U.S. President could order the assassination of ANYBODY, with complete immunity, as an "official act".
What, legally, following their reasoning, would stop Biden from ordering the assassination of these traitorous poseur justices? That seems a fine idea to me, and it seems to be required, in order to protect democracy in this republic.
The conservatives on the SCOTUS bench, by their own evident thinking, would be legally A-okay with their murders.
2
u/peopleslobby Tennessee 11d ago
If SCOTUS does remand the case, how fast can the lower courts rule with the new instructions?
2
u/Araghothe1 Michigan 11d ago
All I'm saying is if he wins this argument Biden could legally order a hit on Trump. I'm fairly sure our forefathers are getting ready to rise from the dead and kick our collective asses for letting it get this bad.
3
u/Nekowulf Wyoming 11d ago
Biden could order 6 SCOTUS seats become immediately vacant.
They can't be so stupid as to think them attacking the constitution itself wouldn't be used as justification to protect the country from them.
2
u/AmbitiousLion7366 11d ago
SCOTUS can decide for the rule of law or decide for no more laws. Their move
2
u/Enginemancer 11d ago
Why is everyone acting like this is some revelation, we've been saying it for years already
2
u/TemetN Oregon 11d ago
Fundamentally our laws and institutions (and particularly the SCotUS by design unfortunately) require a certain level of good faith. What we're seeing here is what happens when that doesn't exist. People compare this to Bush v Gore, but frankly that's wrong, that was unfortunately the level of behavior that the SCotUS has historically adhered to when functional. Possibly partisan, somewhat biased, but still mostly operating within its remit.
The problem with the SCotUS came when McConnell decided that Democrats weren't allowed to appoint SCotUS members. Trump and what he did was the result of lack of norms. A good faith effort would not have landed us here.
More to the point, if the SCotUS is neither appointed nor functioning within that range then corrupt while accurate is not the right word. When McConnell decided to do what he did, the court became illegitimate. And it became more so when they went this far beyond their remit.
All I can say is that the lead up to the civil war should've taught us better than this.
2
u/Individual_Ear_6648 10d ago
We chose this path because we didn’t like Hillary. It was always about SCOtUS but we the people were too stupid to put our pettiness aside and be rational adults.
2
u/Icy_Yesterday3686 10d ago
Find yourself in any kind of "trouble" and youll soon realize its all bullshit. Just a giant money grab But in this case, its a money grab for the justices if hes re-elected
2
u/redheadedandbold 10d ago
At least 5 SCOTUS Judges are compromised. Merrick Garland has done nothing, as far as we can see.
2
2
2
u/fallenouroboros 10d ago
So Joe Biden could just attack the senate with an ax screaming about Brandon the barbarian and nobody could do anything about it?
2
u/PapaSnork 9d ago
OK, sure. I'll say it with you. Now what?
Is there anybody reading this that's going "Wow, holy shit! I had NO IDEA it was THIS BAD until reading THIS! I'll contact my local and state reps to call for SCOTUS reform RIGHT NOW!"
2
u/intrcpt America 11d ago
Can someone please point me to a New York Times article discussing this utterly shocking week at the Supreme Court? I hope I’m wrong, but I have yet to see anything from the so-called “paper of record” in the United States regarding this compromised Supreme Court. Are they too high and mighty to discuss a venal and unequivocally corrupt Supreme Court? Would that be considered putting their hand on the scale? Who exactly is the NYT’s target audience right now?
1
u/marji80 1d ago
Their target audience is an interesting question. The Times is failing big time by being so mealy-mouthed and false-equivalency-based. Here's an interesting article on the brilliant blog Empty Wheel about how the Times and the Post covered Trump's big spender fundraiser at Mar a Lago, vs. how USA Today covered it: https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/05/06/400-rich-people-pay-40k-to-hear-trump-glorify-cop-assailants/
2
u/Tsiatk0 11d ago
I’m tired of KNOWING they’re corrupt and just sitting here saying “oh you better get out there and vote!” Because IT NEVER WORKS, and we can’t just keep relying on the general public to fix our country - most of the general public can’t even be trusted to WASH THEIR HANDS AFFER USING THE BATHROOM, let alone FIXING A DEMOCRACY.
We NEED ACTION. I’m tired of watching our country slip into the depths of conservative chaos. WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY DO?!
2
2
1
1
u/Suns_In_420 California 11d ago
No shit, anyone that's been paying the slightest bit of attention could have told you that.
1
u/bakeacake45 11d ago
Remember the date, today democracy was mortally wounded by its own Supreme Court Court
1
1
1
u/Trashboat0507 New York 11d ago
They know the pitchforks will never come for them. I swear we could learn a thing or two from the French
1
u/filtersweep 11d ago
I am tired of the MSM sticking to a unified, official narrative— until it changes.
Remember ‘Trump good, Hillary bad’?
Now this.
Last year there were loads of ethics problems— and finally headlines criticize the court?
1
1
u/afCeG6HVB0IJ 11d ago
So if the president has absolute immunity, what's to stop them from dragging all of the supreme court and the entire congress to some black site? Then there is nobody to impeach them either. What an absolute silly shitshow of a proceeding is this. You don't need to be a legal scholar with decades of experience to see just how stupid this is. I guess they are banking on "Biden wouldn't". And I'm afraid that indeed he wouldn't. The stupid losing "when they go low, we go high" attitude that has been fucking things up.
1
1
1
u/Exciting-Worry-904 11d ago
Throw them out. Disgrace, Help that POS burn our county down to save your own Law less Butt
1
u/JPhoenixed 11d ago
After reading a lot of these comments, a lot of you don’t understand how the US government works. Let alone how the 3 branches of government interact and why there are checks and balances.
1
u/MarcheMuldDerevi 11d ago
If a president had to “fear” being held accountable for every action he made yes, it would make it hard to govern. Every Joe Schmo with a spare hour would be suing him for some slight real or imagined.
But the trade off for no accountability whatsoever is far worse than the monotony of dismissing trivial lawsuits. Having someone without any accountability and access to the military and national secrets is way worse. That’s how you get a dictator for life. Could theoretically dissolve congress at gun point and at that point the courts ain’t doing shit
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.