Speaks for itself. We’ve been beyond satire for a long time but this one still got me.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      11 days ago

      The Supreme Court members who made this decision are in official act range right now at this moment. Donald Trump is in official act range at this moment as well. Not to draw conclusions but I’m not sure how serious the Democrats are about staying in power.

        • galoisghost@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 days ago

          The should just be honest:

          “Yes this is bad, but we might want to use this power ourselves so we won’t do anything to reverse it. You just need to vote so only WE have the power to use it.”

            • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              11 days ago

              Kill or forcibly resign everyone on the Supreme court who voted in favor of the decision, appoint new justices, and have it overturned.

              More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they’re the majority and then overturn it.

              • hypnoton@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                5 days ago

                More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they’re the majority and then overturn it.

                This will at best take a LOT of time. Congress is not famous for their speed.

                At the worst it is politically impossible.

                So how is this realistic?

                What you said first can probably be done, even if it does break the democratic norms. This latter option seems unrealistic to me.

                Bare minimum Biden needs to declare a state of emergency, a Constitutional crisis, and talk to us on TV about what his administration is doing to handle the crisis firmly and expeditiously. Anything less is irresponsible.

                The people in Biden’s admin are smarter than myself. All my simpleminded self can think of is using the power of the official acts against the SCOTUS itself. If Biden’s White House has better ideas, get on TV right now, and tell us what they are and what is the White House doing about SCOTUS and the nearly unlimited expansion of the presidential powers.

                Pretending we aren’t in a Constitutional crisis right now is political malpractice.

                This isn’t business as usual, President Biden.

          • araneae@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 days ago

            99% of democracies give up right before hitting it big and concentrating supreme power in the hands of a benevolent dictator.

            Examine this change of logic. The democrats want a mandate from the people before they act antidemocratically? So that they can maintain the highground when they do an inherently lowdown thing? And they could do it now but they want a blue election first? Are you a snake eating its own tail?

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 days ago

    All I’ve heard from MAGA so far is that fake electors aren’t illegal, followed by some explanation involving JFK and Hawaii. Now Trump himself is admitting that they’re illegal, but he’s immune?

    A lot more people are about to go to jail for him.

    Also, fuck MAGA for trying to nullify my vote.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 days ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    Speaking to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith’s case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.

    In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith’s “case should be dismissed” because it concerns official acts not private ones.

    Meanwhile Trump celebrated the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.

    The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the ruling would not “change the facts” that Trump tried to “overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”

    “Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”


    Saved 64% of original text.

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 days ago

      Click here to see the summary

      Good bot

      A sudden wall of text is jarring while reading comments, thank you to whoever made this change 👍

  • seang96A
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 days ago

    Wouldn’t their ruling not apply retroactively? Or if he declares it now it wouldn’t mean anything since he isn’t the sitting president?

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 days ago

      Their ruling isn’t new law, it’s telling people what the law already said. Even all the stuff they made up along the way.

      • seang96A
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 days ago

        And the definition of “official” is so gray it could be anything and not anything! Gotta love vauge interpretations from what is supposed to be our finest judges.

        • hypnoton@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 days ago

          But even when prosecuting the pres for unofficial acts nothing involved in committing any official acts can be used as evidence in court.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 days ago

          I particularly like that they hinted that some things in the trial were official and some things weren’t, but they’re not going to tell anyone what they are at this time, we have to wait for the appeal to work its way back up. At which point the election will be over and they’ll just say “psyche, it’s all official”.