• raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    The idea is that he’d pack the court with 10+ constitution- and democracy-loyal judges, and then the supreme court will vote that

    • this measure was necessary
    • the recent immunity ruling is bullshit
    • the corrupt judges shall be impeached
    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      Shitheads like Manchin won’t allow that. Shitheads like Manchin won’t even allow replacing one during an election year.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        What I mean is - Biden should just not ask for permission & do it per executive order. Establish facts and ask for forgiveness later (like he would care if his own appointed court does not grant him immunity out of principle - he’s too old to see the end of such a court case).

        Those are measures I would - under normal circumstances - consider highly problematic, alike to a coup d’etat - but in actuality, this would be a counter-coup, because the actual coup is already happening in slow motion for a decade & more, with the Republicans putting corrupt shitheads on the supreme court, instead of qualified judges with at least some resemblance of impartiality.

        So - if I were Biden - I’d use the “immunity” ruling to establish a proper neutral supreme court, possibly forcefully removing the corrupt judges, and then let the new, established supreme court rule that this was an “official act” (because it would be very fucking much), but also revoke the previous immunity ruling, and have them independently(!) decide on the necessity / legality of my acts, and potential consequences.

        Then let the republicunts choke on their self-created paradox: As the supreme court has confirmed the “official act”, do they condemn it anyways and thereby openly admit that their “immunity for official acts” ruling was only “rules for thee but not for me” - and regardless, would they object to the proceedings against me by the new supreme court on the grounds that the immunity ruling has been revoked, and thereby either defend my immunity, or (not objecting) accept the revocation of the immunity clause?

        I’d love to see them choke on that.

      • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        Realistically, 95% of the population would discuss about it but not do anything, as the measure is bringing back stability and secures future elections, thereby also the possibility for a republican to win. Also most people - especially in western europe and the US, my opinion - are too lethargic to actually follow up on any “civil war” bullshit talk, I mean look at most of our population - a bunch of fat slobs too lethargic even for the most basic things. Do you see the hamberders-militia do anything but some random murder sprees against innocents?