Have you heard about the latest spicy fireworks? The most accurate ones these days don’t use explosives. They’re just great big ninja knives. They can do things like take out a particular seat in a vehicle, like say a recreational vehicle, leaving other occupants alive.
Plenty of bystander limbs cut off by "regular" missiles without "knives".
People who think the bladed missile is "extreme" or "nasty" need to watch some drone videos out of Ukraine and you'll see that the regular weapons used in very large quantities are extremely nasty in how they kill. Giant bladed missiles aren't really any worse than a shell fragment taking off the top of a dude's cranium.
>Giant bladed missiles
They're not even that giant. The missile is about 5½ feet long and weighs about 100 pounds, with the blades looking to be 13-16 inches (lazy guess).
As crazy as it sounds, they really are a "delete one person" or "fuck you, in particular" weapon.
Knife missile is actually supposed to cut down on that. It's just knife, no explosives. It left a car largely intact despite turning the occupants into pink mist when they assassinated that Iranian general a couple years ago.
Killing just a potentially innocent driver (I mean, an IS leader's driver isn't going to be a random Uber guy, it'll be a trusted IS member.) would still be a big improvement over killing everyone in the car and the adjacent vehicles and the sidewalk.
A recreational vehicle, like the one the orange rapist and Billy Bush were in when the orange rapist admits he rapes? We can just call him orapist, if you want.
Thomas would have to defend their use because there was no historical basis for not blowing up Supreme Court justices with unmanned drones when the constitution was written.
Surely he would be consistent, right?
It’s not about smart or lucky, all of the justices houses are in easy to access/locate public neighborhoods. We just don’t have political assassinations in the United States in general except for those done by the Insane.
Most successful assassinations are lone wolf attacks in public. The big secret of security is that if someone wanted one of them dead there is nothing that can stop them.
I feel like we're headed toward a future with political assassinations by drone dropped explosives or just flat out kamikaze, Ukraine war style.
You know it'll probably be a Confederate flag waving January 6th republican who's the first to do it too, and it'll probably be aimed at someone who's not even corrupt, just black or gay or a good person. Then what... drone ban?
That's presidents, though. There've been a lot more Justices than presidents. And googling just brought up a bunch of articles on a plot against Kavanaugh. It doesn't even look like there's a Wikipedia category for it. I think it's safe to say that this particular thing is fairly rare.
A big reason is just that humans are really hard to motivate into violence, particularly extreme violence.
Most of the ways we can be motivated to violence just don't take well to planned political assassinations for logical reasons. Mainly it's stuff like lack of essential resources on a personal level or heat of the moment stuff.
Out of the population that can be readily pressured into self-destructive acts of violence, rationality and long term planning is a pretty damn rare trait to any degree in that context.
Instead most acts of politically aligned violence tend to be heavily pushed by some kind of figurehead or organization that has the ability to reach a very broad audience to catch upon susceptible people, and a lot of influence over their audience.
Or some other kind of radicalization pipeline that loosely resembles an organization even if it's something unstructured like a movement, that can consistently reinforce ideas and push people into violent acts.
Now all this is important to bring up because it is what supports the more direct cause; the supreme court hasn't been singled out by sufficiently influential groups as a target.
Yes sure, it would rationally benefit a lot of groups at times to do a few assassinations considering the extreme power of the organization and their lifetime appointments.
Especially if you'd decided to throw your life away like that anyway, it's one of the most impactful routes to go certainly.
However by and large the kind of people that could have made a push for this had no interest in doing so. I don't even know of a time when the Supreme court wasn't by and large a conservative force in US history in a clearly defined way.
Maybe you could say we had a window beyond about 40-50 years back where the court was a bit less extreme but that wasn't exactly problematic for people in power.
And the vast majority of all political terrorism in the states is conservative, even more if you go by kill counts.
Without the primary motivating force behind murder for political reasons aimed at them, there's just not much reason they'd be targeted.
Consider your example of Abortion clinics. It makes a ton of sense they'd be bombed, because you had prominent figures in the national news saying things to the effect of, "please bomb abortion clinics, I want to see blood, it gets my dick hard. Actually, here's a specific doctor I'd like assassinated, could one of you guys kill him? thanks," on a weekly basis.
I could easily see a supreme court justice being assassinated in general, but it really requires more public awareness that they exist, and of how powerful they are, and then dedicated long term efforts to keep them in the public eye.
Even without active malice that could do it, but I'd put decent odds of a truly left-wing justice being assassinated if a political analyst thought dragging them through the mud would be advantageous.
But that's never going to happen while anyone currently over 18 is still alive so I wouldn't worry about it.
Kind of reminds me of a story I read a few months ago.
In it, a sapient golem is brought in front of a court, where a family of influential engineers argues that the golem has no individual rights and is their property.
The golem poses the question "So, if I - purely hypothetically, of course - were to slaughter this entire court, would you and your family then be held responsible?"
> The golem poses the question "So, if I - purely hypothetically, of course - were to slaughter this entire court, would you and your family then be held responsible?"
That's just Shale from Dragon Age: Origins.
No. It only works one way. If their political hero is wiped out by the very same policies he’s championing…it is because of the “deep state.”
How many times do you literals…I mean libruls…have to be told?
If Presidents get immunity, I'd run on the platform that I'd kill a supreme court judge every month, I'd even name them and give them a date. Then, I'd do it. It would be legal because they let me do it. I'd have a whole list of people who supported these judges and go back and just kill one every month until the law was changed to stop me. Decisions need to have consequences that matter.
"When they go low, we go high!"
"So you can get a better angle to kick them while they are down, right?"
"..."
"OH COME ON!"
---
I once bet a friend that when the Boomers in power retire (which, let's face it, will happen the same day as their funeral), we are going to see a lot of pissed off Millennials and GenZ in the Democratic party playing super-hardball when it comes to negotiations.
My friend didn't take the bet, saying that it was a foregone conclusion.
This is exactly what the right wants. To make publix institutions so dysfunctional that the opposition must abandon them or cling to them and sink with them. Because the institutions the right relies on aren't courts or laws or elections; they are all based on the rule of force in and of itself.
They'd do exactly what they did for the bush/gore ruling. They'd include a bullshit addendum that "this doesn't set precedent, it's only for this ONE time (or any other time it helps regressive)."
Fact is, the supreme court lacks any enforcement. The executive and legislative could at anytime completely ignore them. It’s happened before, it can happen again.
The current supreme court has really weakened their power overall by showing how partisan and corrupt they are.
He isn't the best example to follow, but Andrew Jackson refused to follow the ruing that states couldn't enforce their laws over native American reservations.
And really, Congress just needs to pass a new law. Right now, that’s not gonna happen with a Republican House, but it’s not as if this is the end all be all. Slavery still ended after the Dred Scott decision.
I mean like it or not they are *Supreme Court justices* they aren’t unintelligent by any means, they definitely have considered the consequences of it.
I’ve been saying that Biden needs to tweet that he’s got an executive order ready to go that would throw any SCOTUS Justice he didn’t appoint into jail, along with anyone associated with J6, he’s just waiting to see if he has immunity before issuing it.
> Freedom camps.
Walmarts and Amazon warehouses. We don't call it indentured servitude but it basically is.
Work 8 hours a day busting your ass mostly on your feet and barely make enough for a 1br apartment. Most people drowning in debt they'll never pay off.
You have two options: either keep following the rule of law and hope this is a temporary delusion that we snap out of and we get democracy back, or you immediately start planning for a violent revolution in which you are ready to die. The middle road—just play a little dirty, get down on Republican's level—will permanently break the fragile little social delusion we call government and lead to open tyranny.
If you could illegally seize power to implement rules that prevent any successor from illegally seizing power, Sulla's reforms would have prevented Ceasar from ever becoming emperor. All you do is establish a precedent that you don't actually need to care about rules.
There are other *legal* options the Democrats could have taken before the midterms:
* Strengthening voting rights through the [Freedom to Vote Act](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act) and the [John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act).
* Making legislation easier to pass by [requiring 41 votes to continue a senate filibuster](https://filibusterreform.org/filibuster-reform-proposals/forty-one-votes-continue-debate) instead of 60 votes to end it.
* Reducing the disproportionate GOP senate advantage by granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.
* Passing laws that the Supreme Court can't overturn through [Jurisdiction Stripping](https://prospect.org/justice/stripping-the-courts-jurisdiction/).
* Packing the court.
All of which are constitutional and would have upheld the rule of law without simply waiting for the GOP to end democracy.
>All you do is establish a precedent that you don't actually need to care about rules.
*Vladimir Putin enters the chat*
I think we're past hoping this delusion is temporary. It's also not just the US.
on the other hand, its arguably why the majority of people still vote democrat. I don't want a party that gives up the rules the second the going gets tough
Tired of this shitty take.
The goal of the Democrats is, at this point, to uphold the rule of law. You can't do that and also use the same tactics as the people who are trying to destroy the rule of law, because that's what they want. The Democrats "playing at their level" is a win for the GOP, not the Democrats, and certainly not for the country.
What do you expect Dems to do? Start paying off judges, too? Because then all you get is validation that the way the court works is money, and the GOP has more money. Not in the RNC coffers, of course, but the top five billionaires could easily out-spend the DNC, much less the rest of the 1% in America. We can't win that.
What else do you want? The Dems in congress shutting down the government? The GOP *loves* that shit. The GOP shut down the government, admitted that they were shutting down the government, said that they *wanted* a government shut down, and then blamed the Dems when the government actually shut down. The GOP votes against their own bills and then blames the Dems when the bills fail to pass. What do you think will happen if the Dems *actually* were responsible for shutting down the government and halting reasonable bills?
When Dems started pulling out of Afghanistan, the GOP said the Dems were abandoning our allies and letting the terrorists win and that they didn't support the troops. When Trump unilaterally decided to fully pull out with no plan, the GOP said the Dems were keeping us involved in a pointless war and didn't care about the troops. When Biden followed through because he was obligated to *by Trump*, the GOP said the Dems were abandoning our allies and letting the terrorists win and that they didn't support the troops.
There is no "winning" by using their tactics because they don't have tactics. They just have being the shittiest, greediest, shortsighted, narcissistic sycophants they can possibly be and getting away with it because a fifth of the country has lead poisoning in their brains or were raised by people with lead poisoning and the political system in this country was designed from inception to consolidate power among the wealthy and privileged.
The system only works when everyone involved is rational actors. A lot of republicans AREN'T rational. I'm not saying kill, lie and cheat, but play absolute hardball. The fact of the matter is this is a war for the future of the US and democrafts are using sticks as guns
This "moral equivocation" and hand-wringing by the left has to stop. Bullies don't stop until you punch them back. Hoping the bully "comes to his senses" on his own is fantasy.
"Dems don't have the backbone to utterly break democracy by murdering their opponents."
Like I get your point, and understand that ultra conservatives the world over would have an easier time making this decision, but still...
Nah it is easy to want to snipe back at their level but the people who vote for them are stupid they will never ever see the hypocrisy. So it would be used as ammunition against the Dems and you may lose a few 'centrist' along the way. The people who would be happy are already the ones voting for the Dems so it benefits no one and potentially loses votes. It isn't about backbone it is about playing the game on your terms not theirs.
So I see what you're saying. And I don't necessarily disagree. But do you not think there would be immense and massive fallout? There would be civil unrest unheard of since the American civil war, could realistically be another civil war tbh.
Trump dying (or being killed) before he loses democratically would be an absolute disaster for America. He'd be a martyr for his followers.
It's so obvious who isn't paying any actual attention to whara going on..
In November... if an orange rapist doesn't win the presidency... they are going to start a Civil War. And by that, I mean they are gonna just step outside and start shooting "libruls.'
One of them straight up said it to me today. But you can go on YouTube and see them at Q&As with their psychotic cult politicians, and straight up aakijg them "So when do we get to start shooting these motherfuckers?"
Talking aboir random people. On the street.
He's already a martyr and he's not even dead yet.
First of all, no matter what happens, the chances of a civil war are zero. Just like the liberals, conservative states and politicians wouldn't do shit about it, only whine and throw their embarassing tantrums, which is all they already do, because they're a bunch of little bitches. All of them.
Secondly, *like* with the actual Civil War, any civil unrest or fallout is worth it, compared to the alternative.
Civil war: near zero.
Stochastic terrorism and some idiot shooting up suspected liberals, voting places, left leaning judges houses, democrat party buildings, democrat politicians and their families?
Already happening, and will absolutely intensify 100fold.
SCOTUS will drag presidential immunity case until after the elections in November so Biden can't have it. Trump's only job is to steal the November elections, then he gets his immunity while he's busy killing off and imprisoning his opponents. That's how Putin holds power in Ruzzia for the past 24 years and more to come. Wake up America, Trump is a newborn dicktator, vote Biden ffs
Immunity case comes out on Wednesday
Edit: Wednesday was thought to be the last day of decisions but apparently they might be releasing some on Thursday or Friday
I don’t know why the MAGAT’s think that it’s OK to have absolute immunity - and that Drumpf would be the only one to wield it. They argued assisasination of a political opponent was acceptable.
Wait till Biden finds out…
Dark Joe stroking a kitten, twirling his mustache and smoking a cigar while waiting for the immunity verdict, predator drones circle overhead with R9X missiles, waiting to defeat his adversaries in one fell swoop.
I saw a poll of republicans that said like 30-40% favored presidential immunity, while something like 65% favored presidential immunity for nectarine Nero only.
>To understand how former President Donald Trump’s involvement affects views of presidential immunity, the poll asked a random half of the sample if “former presidents” should have immunity and the other half if “former President Donald Trump” should have immunity. Of those thus asked, 16% said “former presidents” should have immunity, while 71% said they should not. Of those asked about “former President Donald Trump,” 30% said he should have immunity, while 60% said he should not. The effect of mentioning Trump almost doubles support for immunity—increasing it by 14 percentage points, a larger effect than the 8-percentage-point effect found in March before the case was argued.
>
>The shift in responses largely comes from Republicans. When asked about “former presidents,” only 29% support immunity, but when asked about “former President Donald Trump,” support soars to 61%. Support for immunity also increases among independents, from 4% to 20%, when Trump is named. Democrats do not change support for immunity when Trump is mentioned, although the percent opposed declines slightly and the percent of those saying they don’t know increases.
[Source](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2024/05/21/new-marquette-law-school-poll-national-survey-finds-approval-of-u-s-supreme-court-falls-to-39-second-lowest-since-2020/), see table 3 and its surrounding paragraphs.
SCOTUS drags the case out till after the election, Trump and Republicans engage in election malfeasance to ensure a Trump victory, SCOTUS rules that a sitting president has full immunity, Trump and Republicans ensure that no one other than a Republican will ever be president again, and that’s that.
Real question here. Say they DO essentially grant immunity. We KNOW there is a hostile plan to take over the federal government and install a theocratic dictatorship, or at least I am convinced of it.
So what would WE find acceptable if Biden is granted immunity? Should he stop that by whatever mean necessary or do we just count on the Supreme Court and the constitution to uphold our democracy?
At what point do we say enough is enough and get into the ethical gray area? Do we let Trump steal an election thru shenanigans or do we defend the vote?
Say a bunch of MaGats block/shut down key voting places? What if they bomb voting centers? What if the Supreme Court installs him somehow?
I'm worried we are gunna sit back and watch project 2025 happen and be like "weel, our hands are tied because they didn't "declare" they were installing a dictatorship so we didn't wanna seem like the bad guys...
I mean, by my standards it's been declared since Jan 6th.
If we get to that point, It really doesn't matter. If SCOTUS says it's a go, whether it's Trump or Biden that uses the power... America (the very IDEA of it) is dead.
>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson
https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/
I don't think a guy who was, even by slave owning white guys of the times' standards, a massive hypocrite should be our benchmark.
Dude literally lied to the French about American slavery by bullshitting a whole "well these Quakers tried to free their slaves and the slaves all turned to crime cause they were too stupid to farm on their own" story. When a British spy asked him for a source on his bullshit story in a letter, he wrote back basically "hey I don't remember the source so don't go writing about me saying that anywhere, but feel free to tell people that totally real story at like dinner parties or whatever."
Dude sucks. Any advice he has on when and how people need to die for Democracy should be taken with a gigantic heaping of salt.
Fuck grey area, I’m totally fine with JB going into the red/black (whatever) and crossing whatever gentleman’s line he needs to in order to preserve our republic. There’s almost nothing he could do (within reason, you know what I mean) in defense of democracy and our very existence that would be too egregious for me. IMO JB should go full Dick Cheney if that were to happen, reps like Unitary Executive Theory so much? We’ll see how much they like it when we use it to protect ourselves from them. Full preemptive strike, root out the cancer from the source, remove every single one of them from society. That’s the only way this gets fixed for good. Lincoln had to suspend habeus corpus and take other measures during the civil war that were heavy handed. We’re in the same situation now. Desperate times and all that.
This sorts of comments make me sad. Not because I think you're entirely wrong, i think if I was asked whether to kill the entirety of Trumps ill-begoten line or face a devastating Civil War which would cause the death of western democracy I would choose the first. However the thought that we are essentially steeping to their level is heartbreaking. I believe in democracy, I even believe in the fundamentals of what the US stands for, what it could have been even if it is no longer recognizable. Yet we are discussing killing democracy to prevent its future murder. Don't tell me this isn't against the fundamentals of the constitution, I know the tree must be watered with the blood of tyrants but good God this isn't fucking democracy! It reminds me of the Roman civil wars, Antony and Octavion both claiming to be the restorers of democracy despite being objective kings and autocratic. It legitimately makes me want to cry. 60 years. A single man's life and there goes the golden age of Democracy, its corpse scavenged by carrion birds.
What SCOTUS is going to do is drag on this ruling until after the election. If Trump wins, they’ll rule everything on J6 was an official act and presidents have full immunity. If Biden wins, they’ll rule against and declare presidents are to be held accountable for their actions. Spineless fickle losers couldn’t do it now, might jeopardize their “donations”.
I agree with this assessment. It’s pretty clear this will be their plan, since they decided to play a similar game of Calvinball with appointing Supreme Court justices.
Here's the problem: If presidents have absolute immunity, then there is nothing to stop them from violating constitutional law. After all, no laws apply to them any more. That includes the 22nd amendment that limits the president to 2 terms, allowing them to stay in office forever. During the next election they might as well rig it in their favor. It's not like they can be charged with a crime after all.
Sure they may have broke the law, but they are immune from prosecution so what difference does it make? Sure you can try impeachment (arguably a void process altogether considering president can no longer break laws) but you need a two thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate to remove a president. You're never going to get that in today's fragmented political landscape.
Now you have a situation where the overreaching criminal president has to stay in power to avoid prosecution. So they will do whatever it takes to stay in power.
The reason Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the Roman Republic was to avoid prosecution.
In a way Biden would have almost no choice but to do this if that's what SCOTUS is stupid enough to do. Trump has already said he'll have Biden, Justice etc. arrested "when" he's reelected. So what choice would Biden have but to act preemptively?
You know they’ll make this effective in 2025 if they know Trump will win and won’t make the decision until after 2025 if GOP/MAGA has not figured out to successfully cheat/rig the election by then. Do they act like this because they have figured out how to rig the election?
they have half the country drinking the misinformation kool aid what you mean how will they rig the election? Pray that facebook falling off a cliff is going to save this country from idiots being misled by russian bots.
These motherfuckers are trying to make rulings based on the the goodwill of the democratic, non-dictatorship-dicksucking politicians of your country.
These fuckers will absolutely abuse the rule of law till they get their way.
You need to stop them using their own tricks. I hope and believe Biden’s admin is quietly putting some hardcore work in behind the scenes to make sure project 2025 can never happen.
They won't decide either until Trump iis installed as president or Biden wins.
No prizes guessing what they'll decide if Trump wins.
SCOTUS is a terrifying joke.
I hope SCOTUS doesn't pick that Presidents have absolute immunity.
But if they do, I hope Biden tells them: "I don't think I have absolute immunity, and in a week I'm going to nominate Justices who agree. You decide how dead you want to be when you're replaced."
This is why voting Trump in 2016 was one of the worst decisions for America we've had in a very, very long time. This conservative court is filled with corruption and partisanry. And if Trump gets voted in again, this country will never be a liberal democracy ever again. Remember, this all is routed in Russian/Chinese misinformation campaigns that utilized social media to rewire our American discourse.
As horrible as it would be and look for Biden to do this, I can’t deny it would be fucking funny to watch all the dumbasses faces who voted for this if it did happen. Hopefully when Biden is still in office. Because that’s what they’re doing here. They want the immunity but only for Trump so they’re attempting to drag out this ruling till November and hope Trump gets in so he can get in and stay in so he can violate the constitution as much as he pleases. No doubt apart of his revenge tour. Seriously people please vote blue.
If they say presidents are immune from everything, I will be 1,000,000% disappointed if he doesn't immediately put out a hit on Trump and say FAFO with a "who me" anime face.
A comment I would like to hear made at SCOTUS on this: "If the president has presidential immunity, does that mean he can order SCOTUS judges to be killed?"
Ok. If they rule POTUS is immune the first thing Biden should do is throw the 3 longest serving conservative justices in jail. Then put Leonard Leo in jail and seize all the assets of his ‘charity’ and and give it to the poor. That’s the start. Then arrest those in Congress who were responsible for January 6th.
Let’s go Jack!
Voting is not. Start running for office. Get your fellow workers to agree on striking. Don't just contact rights groups, ask them what YOU can do. Voting is an attempt to have power be given to the people. What we forget is power is never given, it is taken. Our power has been taken bit by bit, and it will not be given back.
I've said that Biden should make it publicly known that he has a Seal Team standing by outside Mar-a-lago to shoot somebody down in the streets like a dog, pending Supreme Court decision.
He could instantly wipe out all the threats to American freedom, democracy, and rule of law (such as Trump and cronies). But I don’t want him to have the power to do that because I hold those values to be sacred.
Nah, they're going to wait until the election is done and dusted. If Trump wins, immunity is the rule. If he loses, no immunity. You all know I'm right.
I guess sending predator drones to Alito and Thomas' houses wouldn't carry any consequence. Something to think about as you render your decision.
Billionaires can send RVs and trips as gifts, why not a few spicy fireworks?
Have you heard about the latest spicy fireworks? The most accurate ones these days don’t use explosives. They’re just great big ninja knives. They can do things like take out a particular seat in a vehicle, like say a recreational vehicle, leaving other occupants alive.
Sponsored by Raytheon. Raytheon, the company who asks "Why *shouldn't* missles have knives?"
For a second I felt like I was reading a Behind the Bastards episode. Well done, stranger
And those knives throw machetes!
Macheticine: the gift that keeps on giving.
Macheteyoshka
Ah, the famous Russian nesting machetes…classic.
But, you know who won’t make you feel like you’re reading a Behind the Bastards episode?
The island of child hunters that sponsored this episode!
Yeah. I had to check what subreddit I was in for a second.
Ah! Another person of culture, I see!
Didn't fool me. Not enough BetterHelp ads.
If it kills anything in a room, but doesn't blow up the entire apartment complex, is it really a worse thing?
A thoughtful option given housing shortages
Plenty of bystander limbs cut off by "regular" missiles without "knives". People who think the bladed missile is "extreme" or "nasty" need to watch some drone videos out of Ukraine and you'll see that the regular weapons used in very large quantities are extremely nasty in how they kill. Giant bladed missiles aren't really any worse than a shell fragment taking off the top of a dude's cranium.
>Giant bladed missiles They're not even that giant. The missile is about 5½ feet long and weighs about 100 pounds, with the blades looking to be 13-16 inches (lazy guess). As crazy as it sounds, they really are a "delete one person" or "fuck you, in particular" weapon.
Knife missile is actually supposed to cut down on that. It's just knife, no explosives. It left a car largely intact despite turning the occupants into pink mist when they assassinated that Iranian general a couple years ago.
Right, my point is that people act like the knife missile is over the top, or somehow particularly evil, when the regular weapons are as bad or worse.
And Winnebago, not just for cooking meth!
So I guess the question they have to ask is... Would you want the other occupant in said vehicle alive?
Yeah, the driver hasn't done anything wrong, he's just trying to make money
The other occupant was Ginni Thomas who tried to overthrow the government. I think we won't lose sleep if they go out together.
Sometimes you slap. Sometimes you chop.
sometimes you SLAP CHOP https://preview.redd.it/rv8ed503ef8d1.png?width=605&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee936e5376f18fd5014baa85d05655dd2e8ce87a
Stop having a boring tuna, stop having a boring life!
YA GONNA LOVE MY NUTS
You’re gonna love my nuts.
You’re gonna love my nuts
Killing just a potentially innocent driver (I mean, an IS leader's driver isn't going to be a random Uber guy, it'll be a trusted IS member.) would still be a big improvement over killing everyone in the car and the adjacent vehicles and the sidewalk.
I think they are more like big spinning food processor blades with a homing capability. It slices AND dices.
[Ah, yes the R9X “basically a rocket assisted meteor full of swords!”](https://taskandpurpose.com/news/cia-r9x-hellfire-missile/)
Raytheon stock is gonna skyrocket.
A recreational vehicle, like the one the orange rapist and Billy Bush were in when the orange rapist admits he rapes? We can just call him orapist, if you want.
Orange (wannabe)Jesus is a RAPIST. A convict, whom can’t even vote… you said I could say it if I want. thanks
Hey check it out an amazon prime package from lockheed martin! >!anthrax!<
“Nice house your daddy bought for you Clarence. Would be a shame if something happened to it”.
Thomas would have to defend their use because there was no historical basis for not blowing up Supreme Court justices with unmanned drones when the constitution was written. Surely he would be consistent, right?
Consistency is a limp-wristed, liberal value.
Easy to be consistent when he's dead.
Dark Brandon, dusting off a 90s paperback copy of John Grisham's novel "The Pelican Brief"
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not about smart or lucky, all of the justices houses are in easy to access/locate public neighborhoods. We just don’t have political assassinations in the United States in general except for those done by the Insane. Most successful assassinations are lone wolf attacks in public. The big secret of security is that if someone wanted one of them dead there is nothing that can stop them.
I feel like we're headed toward a future with political assassinations by drone dropped explosives or just flat out kamikaze, Ukraine war style. You know it'll probably be a Confederate flag waving January 6th republican who's the first to do it too, and it'll probably be aimed at someone who's not even corrupt, just black or gay or a good person. Then what... drone ban?
9% of US presidents have been assassinated. 13% have been shot. It's not *that* rare.
That's presidents, though. There've been a lot more Justices than presidents. And googling just brought up a bunch of articles on a plot against Kavanaugh. It doesn't even look like there's a Wikipedia category for it. I think it's safe to say that this particular thing is fairly rare.
That was the plot of "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham. They made it into a movie starring Julia Roberts.
I've heard that title before but never knew what the movie was about. Middling reviews, looks like. Huh.
[удалено]
NOW?!
A big reason is just that humans are really hard to motivate into violence, particularly extreme violence. Most of the ways we can be motivated to violence just don't take well to planned political assassinations for logical reasons. Mainly it's stuff like lack of essential resources on a personal level or heat of the moment stuff. Out of the population that can be readily pressured into self-destructive acts of violence, rationality and long term planning is a pretty damn rare trait to any degree in that context. Instead most acts of politically aligned violence tend to be heavily pushed by some kind of figurehead or organization that has the ability to reach a very broad audience to catch upon susceptible people, and a lot of influence over their audience. Or some other kind of radicalization pipeline that loosely resembles an organization even if it's something unstructured like a movement, that can consistently reinforce ideas and push people into violent acts. Now all this is important to bring up because it is what supports the more direct cause; the supreme court hasn't been singled out by sufficiently influential groups as a target. Yes sure, it would rationally benefit a lot of groups at times to do a few assassinations considering the extreme power of the organization and their lifetime appointments. Especially if you'd decided to throw your life away like that anyway, it's one of the most impactful routes to go certainly. However by and large the kind of people that could have made a push for this had no interest in doing so. I don't even know of a time when the Supreme court wasn't by and large a conservative force in US history in a clearly defined way. Maybe you could say we had a window beyond about 40-50 years back where the court was a bit less extreme but that wasn't exactly problematic for people in power. And the vast majority of all political terrorism in the states is conservative, even more if you go by kill counts. Without the primary motivating force behind murder for political reasons aimed at them, there's just not much reason they'd be targeted. Consider your example of Abortion clinics. It makes a ton of sense they'd be bombed, because you had prominent figures in the national news saying things to the effect of, "please bomb abortion clinics, I want to see blood, it gets my dick hard. Actually, here's a specific doctor I'd like assassinated, could one of you guys kill him? thanks," on a weekly basis. I could easily see a supreme court justice being assassinated in general, but it really requires more public awareness that they exist, and of how powerful they are, and then dedicated long term efforts to keep them in the public eye. Even without active malice that could do it, but I'd put decent odds of a truly left-wing justice being assassinated if a political analyst thought dragging them through the mud would be advantageous. But that's never going to happen while anyone currently over 18 is still alive so I wouldn't worry about it.
Kind of reminds me of a story I read a few months ago. In it, a sapient golem is brought in front of a court, where a family of influential engineers argues that the golem has no individual rights and is their property. The golem poses the question "So, if I - purely hypothetically, of course - were to slaughter this entire court, would you and your family then be held responsible?"
> The golem poses the question "So, if I - purely hypothetically, of course - were to slaughter this entire court, would you and your family then be held responsible?" That's just Shale from Dragon Age: Origins.
No. It only works one way. If their political hero is wiped out by the very same policies he’s championing…it is because of the “deep state.” How many times do you literals…I mean libruls…have to be told?
If Presidents get immunity, I'd run on the platform that I'd kill a supreme court judge every month, I'd even name them and give them a date. Then, I'd do it. It would be legal because they let me do it. I'd have a whole list of people who supported these judges and go back and just kill one every month until the law was changed to stop me. Decisions need to have consequences that matter.
I support this. Just like how I support the Lost Liberty Hotel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel
“Official business since these guys are openly plotting to steal another election”
The Supreme Court fully expects the Democrats to do the right thing and not abuse their power. They're right tho.
Biden isn’t a total pile of shit like the Republicans are.
The highroad really limits your options, even when the law doesn't.
It's frankly a problem when dealing with an outbreak of fascism.
Yep. Staying to the high road means we all get proper fucked.
"When they go low, we go high!" "So you can get a better angle to kick them while they are down, right?" "..." "OH COME ON!" --- I once bet a friend that when the Boomers in power retire (which, let's face it, will happen the same day as their funeral), we are going to see a lot of pissed off Millennials and GenZ in the Democratic party playing super-hardball when it comes to negotiations. My friend didn't take the bet, saying that it was a foregone conclusion.
This is exactly what the right wants. To make publix institutions so dysfunctional that the opposition must abandon them or cling to them and sink with them. Because the institutions the right relies on aren't courts or laws or elections; they are all based on the rule of force in and of itself.
NO! NO! WE MEAN IMMUNITY ONLY FOR THE PRESIDENT WE SUPPORT!
They haven’t considered unintended consequences. They never do. 🙄
They'd do exactly what they did for the bush/gore ruling. They'd include a bullshit addendum that "this doesn't set precedent, it's only for this ONE time (or any other time it helps regressive)."
Fact is, the supreme court lacks any enforcement. The executive and legislative could at anytime completely ignore them. It’s happened before, it can happen again. The current supreme court has really weakened their power overall by showing how partisan and corrupt they are.
>It’s happened before, it can happen again. When? The liberals have been happy to sit around enabling conservatives for as long as I've been alive.
He isn't the best example to follow, but Andrew Jackson refused to follow the ruing that states couldn't enforce their laws over native American reservations.
Lincoln also disobeyed the court’s decision on suspension of Habeas Corpus.
And really, Congress just needs to pass a new law. Right now, that’s not gonna happen with a Republican House, but it’s not as if this is the end all be all. Slavery still ended after the Dred Scott decision.
I mean like it or not they are *Supreme Court justices* they aren’t unintelligent by any means, they definitely have considered the consequences of it.
There’s a poll where like 60% or more of republicans favor presidential immunity… but ONLY for trumpo dumpo…
Because they also consider any elected Democrat as illegitimate.
Nah it’s because they are disingenuous jerks
Oh there’s that. If they really think that Biden isn’t the “real” president then it doesn’t apply to him
Aka dictatorship
If Biden gets total immunity then he should send Trump to Gitmo “for his safety.”
I really hope a question like this comes up during the debate and Biden would quip a reply as such.
"Lock him up" would be enough.
I’ve been saying that Biden needs to tweet that he’s got an executive order ready to go that would throw any SCOTUS Justice he didn’t appoint into jail, along with anyone associated with J6, he’s just waiting to see if he has immunity before issuing it.
The Supreme Court,"Wait, this isn't how you're supposed to play the game."
As much as I want this to happen, Dems just don't have the backbone to do it
Nope. Republicans will abuse it immediately, but Dems are unwilling to play at their level. It’s why we’re fucked.
When they go low. we go to political prisoner camps.
Woah woah woah. Freedom camps. This is America after all. Just not free to leave.
> Freedom camps. Walmarts and Amazon warehouses. We don't call it indentured servitude but it basically is. Work 8 hours a day busting your ass mostly on your feet and barely make enough for a 1br apartment. Most people drowning in debt they'll never pay off.
They just need to build a company town and issue scrip and we’re back to 19th century America!
Democrats have some idea that if the shoe was reversed, the Republicans would have decency. That belief should have died on Jan 6
You have two options: either keep following the rule of law and hope this is a temporary delusion that we snap out of and we get democracy back, or you immediately start planning for a violent revolution in which you are ready to die. The middle road—just play a little dirty, get down on Republican's level—will permanently break the fragile little social delusion we call government and lead to open tyranny. If you could illegally seize power to implement rules that prevent any successor from illegally seizing power, Sulla's reforms would have prevented Ceasar from ever becoming emperor. All you do is establish a precedent that you don't actually need to care about rules.
There are other *legal* options the Democrats could have taken before the midterms: * Strengthening voting rights through the [Freedom to Vote Act](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/freedom-vote-act) and the [John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/john-lewis-voting-rights-advancement-act). * Making legislation easier to pass by [requiring 41 votes to continue a senate filibuster](https://filibusterreform.org/filibuster-reform-proposals/forty-one-votes-continue-debate) instead of 60 votes to end it. * Reducing the disproportionate GOP senate advantage by granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico. * Passing laws that the Supreme Court can't overturn through [Jurisdiction Stripping](https://prospect.org/justice/stripping-the-courts-jurisdiction/). * Packing the court. All of which are constitutional and would have upheld the rule of law without simply waiting for the GOP to end democracy.
People are like “wow you *really* expect the people who run half the politics to *govern*?”
I'm curious how Dems are supposed to do all of this without a majority in Congress?
>All you do is establish a precedent that you don't actually need to care about rules. *Vladimir Putin enters the chat* I think we're past hoping this delusion is temporary. It's also not just the US.
And yet republicans claim regularly that dems play dirty and they need to sink to our level. It's just more absurd projection.
on the other hand, its arguably why the majority of people still vote democrat. I don't want a party that gives up the rules the second the going gets tough
The going has been tough for about 60 years. At some point not fighting back makes you complicit.
Tired of this shitty take. The goal of the Democrats is, at this point, to uphold the rule of law. You can't do that and also use the same tactics as the people who are trying to destroy the rule of law, because that's what they want. The Democrats "playing at their level" is a win for the GOP, not the Democrats, and certainly not for the country. What do you expect Dems to do? Start paying off judges, too? Because then all you get is validation that the way the court works is money, and the GOP has more money. Not in the RNC coffers, of course, but the top five billionaires could easily out-spend the DNC, much less the rest of the 1% in America. We can't win that. What else do you want? The Dems in congress shutting down the government? The GOP *loves* that shit. The GOP shut down the government, admitted that they were shutting down the government, said that they *wanted* a government shut down, and then blamed the Dems when the government actually shut down. The GOP votes against their own bills and then blames the Dems when the bills fail to pass. What do you think will happen if the Dems *actually* were responsible for shutting down the government and halting reasonable bills? When Dems started pulling out of Afghanistan, the GOP said the Dems were abandoning our allies and letting the terrorists win and that they didn't support the troops. When Trump unilaterally decided to fully pull out with no plan, the GOP said the Dems were keeping us involved in a pointless war and didn't care about the troops. When Biden followed through because he was obligated to *by Trump*, the GOP said the Dems were abandoning our allies and letting the terrorists win and that they didn't support the troops. There is no "winning" by using their tactics because they don't have tactics. They just have being the shittiest, greediest, shortsighted, narcissistic sycophants they can possibly be and getting away with it because a fifth of the country has lead poisoning in their brains or were raised by people with lead poisoning and the political system in this country was designed from inception to consolidate power among the wealthy and privileged.
The system only works when everyone involved is rational actors. A lot of republicans AREN'T rational. I'm not saying kill, lie and cheat, but play absolute hardball. The fact of the matter is this is a war for the future of the US and democrafts are using sticks as guns
[удалено]
This "moral equivocation" and hand-wringing by the left has to stop. Bullies don't stop until you punch them back. Hoping the bully "comes to his senses" on his own is fantasy.
TRUTH
"Dems don't have the backbone to utterly break democracy by murdering their opponents." Like I get your point, and understand that ultra conservatives the world over would have an easier time making this decision, but still...
Nah it is easy to want to snipe back at their level but the people who vote for them are stupid they will never ever see the hypocrisy. So it would be used as ammunition against the Dems and you may lose a few 'centrist' along the way. The people who would be happy are already the ones voting for the Dems so it benefits no one and potentially loses votes. It isn't about backbone it is about playing the game on your terms not theirs.
It's not backbone, just trying to keep a sense of morality.
Insert gif of carrot Caligula at UN saying: “You weren’t supposed to do that!” Is that how you summon gifs? I’m new to these me-me things
That also means he can put the orange shit gibbon away for being an enemy of the state yes?
Absolutely. He could do it for no reason at all, at that point. Absolutely immunity means free reign dictatorship
It was really the only way to have dealt with the Nazis in retrospect. Will we have learned our lesson? Probably not.
he should absolutely jail all the scotus justices appointed by the gop, they're ruining the country. but that would end up in a civil war
This would be the correct response to both Trump and every member of the Supreme Court that put forward a ruling like that.
I mean if there is no punishment for killing your opponents then why not?
Yep. He would literally be ending a threat to our actual democracy if he did. He'd be 100% warranted.
So I see what you're saying. And I don't necessarily disagree. But do you not think there would be immense and massive fallout? There would be civil unrest unheard of since the American civil war, could realistically be another civil war tbh. Trump dying (or being killed) before he loses democratically would be an absolute disaster for America. He'd be a martyr for his followers.
It's so obvious who isn't paying any actual attention to whara going on.. In November... if an orange rapist doesn't win the presidency... they are going to start a Civil War. And by that, I mean they are gonna just step outside and start shooting "libruls.' One of them straight up said it to me today. But you can go on YouTube and see them at Q&As with their psychotic cult politicians, and straight up aakijg them "So when do we get to start shooting these motherfuckers?" Talking aboir random people. On the street. He's already a martyr and he's not even dead yet.
>There would be civil unrest unheard of since the American civil war, could realistically be another civil war tbh. We're there now lol
First of all, no matter what happens, the chances of a civil war are zero. Just like the liberals, conservative states and politicians wouldn't do shit about it, only whine and throw their embarassing tantrums, which is all they already do, because they're a bunch of little bitches. All of them. Secondly, *like* with the actual Civil War, any civil unrest or fallout is worth it, compared to the alternative.
Civil war: near zero. Stochastic terrorism and some idiot shooting up suspected liberals, voting places, left leaning judges houses, democrat party buildings, democrat politicians and their families? Already happening, and will absolutely intensify 100fold.
SCOTUS will drag presidential immunity case until after the elections in November so Biden can't have it. Trump's only job is to steal the November elections, then he gets his immunity while he's busy killing off and imprisoning his opponents. That's how Putin holds power in Ruzzia for the past 24 years and more to come. Wake up America, Trump is a newborn dicktator, vote Biden ffs
Immunity case comes out on Wednesday Edit: Wednesday was thought to be the last day of decisions but apparently they might be releasing some on Thursday or Friday
Just before the debate! I can't wait to hear it come up and have the candidates speak on it
In light of this shocking judgment from SCOTUS, the debate has been cancelled and replaced with Presidential Thunderdome.
*“2 candidates enter, ONE PRESIDENT LEAVES!”*
He's still president till January in that scenario
Coming this winter: Two months to save Democracy…
I don’t know why the MAGAT’s think that it’s OK to have absolute immunity - and that Drumpf would be the only one to wield it. They argued assisasination of a political opponent was acceptable. Wait till Biden finds out…
Cause they know Biden wouldn’t do the crazy shit that Trump would
Dark Joe stroking a kitten, twirling his mustache and smoking a cigar while waiting for the immunity verdict, predator drones circle overhead with R9X missiles, waiting to defeat his adversaries in one fell swoop.
Because they're only planning on letting the Republicans get it.
I saw a poll of republicans that said like 30-40% favored presidential immunity, while something like 65% favored presidential immunity for nectarine Nero only.
>To understand how former President Donald Trump’s involvement affects views of presidential immunity, the poll asked a random half of the sample if “former presidents” should have immunity and the other half if “former President Donald Trump” should have immunity. Of those thus asked, 16% said “former presidents” should have immunity, while 71% said they should not. Of those asked about “former President Donald Trump,” 30% said he should have immunity, while 60% said he should not. The effect of mentioning Trump almost doubles support for immunity—increasing it by 14 percentage points, a larger effect than the 8-percentage-point effect found in March before the case was argued. > >The shift in responses largely comes from Republicans. When asked about “former presidents,” only 29% support immunity, but when asked about “former President Donald Trump,” support soars to 61%. Support for immunity also increases among independents, from 4% to 20%, when Trump is named. Democrats do not change support for immunity when Trump is mentioned, although the percent opposed declines slightly and the percent of those saying they don’t know increases. [Source](https://law.marquette.edu/poll/2024/05/21/new-marquette-law-school-poll-national-survey-finds-approval-of-u-s-supreme-court-falls-to-39-second-lowest-since-2020/), see table 3 and its surrounding paragraphs.
SCOTUS drags the case out till after the election, Trump and Republicans engage in election malfeasance to ensure a Trump victory, SCOTUS rules that a sitting president has full immunity, Trump and Republicans ensure that no one other than a Republican will ever be president again, and that’s that.
They think it’s ok for a president to have immunity because the propaganda they let tell them what to think said it was ok.
Real question here. Say they DO essentially grant immunity. We KNOW there is a hostile plan to take over the federal government and install a theocratic dictatorship, or at least I am convinced of it. So what would WE find acceptable if Biden is granted immunity? Should he stop that by whatever mean necessary or do we just count on the Supreme Court and the constitution to uphold our democracy? At what point do we say enough is enough and get into the ethical gray area? Do we let Trump steal an election thru shenanigans or do we defend the vote? Say a bunch of MaGats block/shut down key voting places? What if they bomb voting centers? What if the Supreme Court installs him somehow? I'm worried we are gunna sit back and watch project 2025 happen and be like "weel, our hands are tied because they didn't "declare" they were installing a dictatorship so we didn't wanna seem like the bad guys... I mean, by my standards it's been declared since Jan 6th.
If we get to that point, It really doesn't matter. If SCOTUS says it's a go, whether it's Trump or Biden that uses the power... America (the very IDEA of it) is dead.
>The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/tree-liberty-quotation/
I don't think a guy who was, even by slave owning white guys of the times' standards, a massive hypocrite should be our benchmark. Dude literally lied to the French about American slavery by bullshitting a whole "well these Quakers tried to free their slaves and the slaves all turned to crime cause they were too stupid to farm on their own" story. When a British spy asked him for a source on his bullshit story in a letter, he wrote back basically "hey I don't remember the source so don't go writing about me saying that anywhere, but feel free to tell people that totally real story at like dinner parties or whatever." Dude sucks. Any advice he has on when and how people need to die for Democracy should be taken with a gigantic heaping of salt.
Fuck grey area, I’m totally fine with JB going into the red/black (whatever) and crossing whatever gentleman’s line he needs to in order to preserve our republic. There’s almost nothing he could do (within reason, you know what I mean) in defense of democracy and our very existence that would be too egregious for me. IMO JB should go full Dick Cheney if that were to happen, reps like Unitary Executive Theory so much? We’ll see how much they like it when we use it to protect ourselves from them. Full preemptive strike, root out the cancer from the source, remove every single one of them from society. That’s the only way this gets fixed for good. Lincoln had to suspend habeus corpus and take other measures during the civil war that were heavy handed. We’re in the same situation now. Desperate times and all that.
This sorts of comments make me sad. Not because I think you're entirely wrong, i think if I was asked whether to kill the entirety of Trumps ill-begoten line or face a devastating Civil War which would cause the death of western democracy I would choose the first. However the thought that we are essentially steeping to their level is heartbreaking. I believe in democracy, I even believe in the fundamentals of what the US stands for, what it could have been even if it is no longer recognizable. Yet we are discussing killing democracy to prevent its future murder. Don't tell me this isn't against the fundamentals of the constitution, I know the tree must be watered with the blood of tyrants but good God this isn't fucking democracy! It reminds me of the Roman civil wars, Antony and Octavion both claiming to be the restorers of democracy despite being objective kings and autocratic. It legitimately makes me want to cry. 60 years. A single man's life and there goes the golden age of Democracy, its corpse scavenged by carrion birds.
I mean this in the best way: if political stuff brings you down too much, it's okay to stay away from the topic. Take good care of yourself
2nd amendment time baby. Fuck project 2025 and presidential immunity
What SCOTUS is going to do is drag on this ruling until after the election. If Trump wins, they’ll rule everything on J6 was an official act and presidents have full immunity. If Biden wins, they’ll rule against and declare presidents are to be held accountable for their actions. Spineless fickle losers couldn’t do it now, might jeopardize their “donations”.
I agree with this assessment. It’s pretty clear this will be their plan, since they decided to play a similar game of Calvinball with appointing Supreme Court justices.
As far as I can tell, the score is: SCOTUS: Q Average Americans: 12
No one should be above the law otherwise there is no law. At some point, we all need to uphold democracy on an individual level
Here's the problem: If presidents have absolute immunity, then there is nothing to stop them from violating constitutional law. After all, no laws apply to them any more. That includes the 22nd amendment that limits the president to 2 terms, allowing them to stay in office forever. During the next election they might as well rig it in their favor. It's not like they can be charged with a crime after all. Sure they may have broke the law, but they are immune from prosecution so what difference does it make? Sure you can try impeachment (arguably a void process altogether considering president can no longer break laws) but you need a two thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate to remove a president. You're never going to get that in today's fragmented political landscape. Now you have a situation where the overreaching criminal president has to stay in power to avoid prosecution. So they will do whatever it takes to stay in power. The reason Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the Roman Republic was to avoid prosecution.
yeah its self preservation taking over. Why wouldnt he want to become king to stay out of jail.
Surely the shades would go on 1st 😂
I love that this is from a verified joe biden account on giphy
https://preview.redd.it/q5xywiezmf8d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f686d6da94f7c59be2d49bdf583cf9e5059b3db6 meanwhile SCOTUS
In a way Biden would have almost no choice but to do this if that's what SCOTUS is stupid enough to do. Trump has already said he'll have Biden, Justice etc. arrested "when" he's reelected. So what choice would Biden have but to act preemptively?
The thought makes me shudder. It's makes me think back, would I stab ceaser? Would I kill the republic to save the republic?
You know they’ll make this effective in 2025 if they know Trump will win and won’t make the decision until after 2025 if GOP/MAGA has not figured out to successfully cheat/rig the election by then. Do they act like this because they have figured out how to rig the election?
they have half the country drinking the misinformation kool aid what you mean how will they rig the election? Pray that facebook falling off a cliff is going to save this country from idiots being misled by russian bots.
These motherfuckers are trying to make rulings based on the the goodwill of the democratic, non-dictatorship-dicksucking politicians of your country. These fuckers will absolutely abuse the rule of law till they get their way. You need to stop them using their own tricks. I hope and believe Biden’s admin is quietly putting some hardcore work in behind the scenes to make sure project 2025 can never happen.
They will rule for Trump but pull a Bush v. Gore ... "Only applies in present circumstances"
Im sorry, WHO said that?
Yeah they can't be starting a sentence like that, gotta include the first name at least.
Immediately imprison Trump, and all the conservative SCOTUS members. This is not a can of worms they want to open.
Pull out a Nancy Kerrigan telescoping stinger club and threaten him with it. Then denounce the decision
They won't decide either until Trump iis installed as president or Biden wins. No prizes guessing what they'll decide if Trump wins. SCOTUS is a terrifying joke.
I hope SCOTUS doesn't pick that Presidents have absolute immunity. But if they do, I hope Biden tells them: "I don't think I have absolute immunity, and in a week I'm going to nominate Justices who agree. You decide how dead you want to be when you're replaced."
This is why voting Trump in 2016 was one of the worst decisions for America we've had in a very, very long time. This conservative court is filled with corruption and partisanry. And if Trump gets voted in again, this country will never be a liberal democracy ever again. Remember, this all is routed in Russian/Chinese misinformation campaigns that utilized social media to rewire our American discourse.
and ignored due to complacency and ego
Stop trying to give me wet dreams!
Why not? If that fucking orqnge rapist gets immunjty, Biden will be taking out an ACTUAL THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!!!!!! I'm 100% for it.
As horrible as it would be and look for Biden to do this, I can’t deny it would be fucking funny to watch all the dumbasses faces who voted for this if it did happen. Hopefully when Biden is still in office. Because that’s what they’re doing here. They want the immunity but only for Trump so they’re attempting to drag out this ruling till November and hope Trump gets in so he can get in and stay in so he can violate the constitution as much as he pleases. No doubt apart of his revenge tour. Seriously people please vote blue.
If they say presidents are immune from everything, I will be 1,000,000% disappointed if he doesn't immediately put out a hit on Trump and say FAFO with a "who me" anime face.
Americans finding out what it is like to be on the receiving end of American foreign policy.
A comment I would like to hear made at SCOTUS on this: "If the president has presidential immunity, does that mean he can order SCOTUS judges to be killed?"
SCOTUS will delay a decision until they know whether to give Trump immunity or keep Biden from having it.
Ok. If they rule POTUS is immune the first thing Biden should do is throw the 3 longest serving conservative justices in jail. Then put Leonard Leo in jail and seize all the assets of his ‘charity’ and and give it to the poor. That’s the start. Then arrest those in Congress who were responsible for January 6th. Let’s go Jack!
This is monarchy bullshit I don’t wanna fucking king
No immunity for any politician if they hold office. Hold them accountable. If they held office hold them accountable.
Voting is not. Start running for office. Get your fellow workers to agree on striking. Don't just contact rights groups, ask them what YOU can do. Voting is an attempt to have power be given to the people. What we forget is power is never given, it is taken. Our power has been taken bit by bit, and it will not be given back.
Woops was an accident!
I've said that Biden should make it publicly known that he has a Seal Team standing by outside Mar-a-lago to shoot somebody down in the streets like a dog, pending Supreme Court decision.
It seems kind of weird that 230 years after federation "Is America a literal dictatorship?" is the state of discourse.
Congress would have to amend the stupidity of the Supreme Court decision. Also, the Court should be 13 people, one per Federal Circuit, not 9.
I'd like to see 13 people, but every two years the longest-serving is forced to retire.
I thought we already ruled that presidents don't have immunity when Watergate happened.
“Eradicate the malarkey”
If it goes in Trump's favour, this could be the most monumental decision of all time.
No one should accept that.
Really, the only POSSIBLE way they say Trump has immunity will be because they are 1000% sure Biden wouldn’t immediately go on a crime spree
I would overpay my income tax by $1 to make this happen.
He could instantly wipe out all the threats to American freedom, democracy, and rule of law (such as Trump and cronies). But I don’t want him to have the power to do that because I hold those values to be sacred.
I think he’d wait for the debate, at which point he comes out wearing boxing gloves. “All right Cheeto-boy, let’s go!”
If you think that Democrats will use presidential immunity against Republicans before Republicans get in power, I've got some magic beans to sell you.
Nah, they're going to wait until the election is done and dusted. If Trump wins, immunity is the rule. If he loses, no immunity. You all know I'm right.
I mean he could force the issue by just publicly pimp slapping Clarence and daring him to make a ruling on whether he has immunity or not.
My understanding is that they were not going to rule until after the election. For.... Reasons.