AOC says many who want Joe Biden off ticket also want to remove Kamala - eviltoast

This stupid topic again

But sure

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    I love how you skip the part where Congress blocked everything the SCotUS didn’t. That’s so efficient.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

      Not to mention, he was so goddamn focused on “reaching across the aisle” that he picked a guy for AG that clearly doesn’t have a strong interest in, you know, preventing the fascists from winning, because he’s in the same party as the fascists.

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

        There are a LOT of things he could have done in a lot of areas that require neither Congress nor the courts.

        Go on

      • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        /s ?

        The President using the armed forces to assassinate a political rival would be immune to prosecution under this ruling.

        A President’s use of the military is a power granted to them under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. In order to prosecute for this hypothetical assassination, they would first need to prove that providing orders as Commander in Chief was somehow an unofficial act.

        This is one of the specific examples Sotomayor listed in her dissenting opinion on this ruling.

        • Omega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.

          • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

            Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.

            The President’s authority as Commander in Chief is a core constitutional power, as granted in Article II, Section 2. This example is not hyperbolic.

          • octopus_ink@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            SCOTUS would just rule that political assassination was not an official act, assuming they were a Democrat of course. It’s not like they’re consistent.