On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

  • Akuden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Well golly gee, mister, if I’m so ignorant can you please explain to me how I’m wrong? Be specific, now!

      If not, then by all means, please continue with your point-free ad-hominem attacks. It’s entertaining! 🍿

      • Akuden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Absolutely not. You’re insane, you wouldn’t consider anything I’d say.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Oh, by the way: no, I’m not insane. SCOTUS is insane. I’m just discussing the implications of their insane decision.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          LOL, you’re just saying that because you can’t actually refute my point and you know it.

          Prove me wrong, I dare you.