Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Political rival doesn't mean anything. This ruling means any president will get away with it and we'll likely need a constitutional amendment to fix. Hopefully ending qualified immunity would eliminate it.
Any president can get away with it, but only one party's candidates will actually do it.
The party that put these fascist judges on the bench will do it, in case that wasn't obvious.
If you think it's the Democrats that'll fix it, I have a bridge to sell you.
I didn't say anything about them fixing it, just not abusing it.
That's still a naive take. It's one thing I've noticed in this world is that most everyone is fine with authoritarianism so long as it's their team/side/tribe/party calling the shots. It's still giving power to people that shouldn't have it and all it accomplishes is that they can and will step harder on you and keep you under their boot.
The Dems and their constituents are not ok with this power for the president.
I just made a comment as a contrast to the Republicans who stacked the courts to get this decision so they could abuse it.
The only people who are ok with this are the Republicans.
Democrats made absolutely no noise when presidents of their party made powerful (IMHO unconstitutional) executive orders the last biggest being the drone strike ordered by Obama that killed an American without due process.
You can bellyache about this court, but there was no noise from Democrats when the Warren and Burger courts legislated from the bench and ignored precedent for most of last century.
My point is when Democrats do it, Republicans gripe about it but secretly like having that power when they get on office, and when Republicans do it, Democrats will gripe but will use that same power when they get in office. If you want real change vote for people that opposed it when both parties did it.