Mitch McConnell, if he could understand it all, would be very proud.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Nixon would have loved this SC.
Not just the USA either, if it can happen there it will be a playbook that many others will follow too.
I mean they're not even sleepwalking into it at this point, they're happily skipping to it.
Pretty absurd ruling. Should Biden now appoint 4 new SCOTUS, order the army to kill the current GOP SCOTUS, declare himself president for another 8 years and order army to kill Trump? All of which are not constitutional acts, but at worse, in the eyes of the law, he would be immune from prosecution.
The Supreme would find a way to rationalize this.
I kind of giggled a bit thinking of Marines walking in 4 new judges to SC and telling Alito and Clarence to scoot over.
I genuinely don't understand some of these justices. Fine Alito and Thomas are old and bitter and like pain, but Roberts?he should go down as literally the worst court leader in history.
The public shouldn't stand for this. God knows someone other than Joe would do something now, given these protections but we're fcked by the sham that is the DNC.
All empires crumble, just so fitting it would be a reality TV show con man that does it to the US.
The public shouldn't stand for this. God knows someone other than Joe would do something now, given these protections but we're fcked by the sham that is the DNC.
All empires crumble, just so fitting it would be a reality TV show con man that does it to the US.
Yeah, I truly believe that at this stage Alito and Thomas would rule that killing 80 million US citizens who vote Democrat is constitutional, but very surprised that the other judges, especially Roberts ruled this way.
Famous quote by Thomas...
"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
well it was nice whilst it lasted. America now in a full spiral towards totalitarianism
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/
I know the US is all about Montesquieu and the separation of powers and all that stuff, but it seems crazy to me that a court can decide such immensely impactful matters - with no recourse for the elected legislature except individually impeaching justices and replacing them, and hoping the new ones reverse it.
I am sure it had nothing to do with the newly found appreciation for gratuities.
The problem of removing SCOTUS is that you need both parties to want to do so, considering that it requires 2/3 of votes in the senate.
Assassinating them though? Now, that is another matter. Biden should play with that idea.
I'm sending Jill Biden an e-mail as we speak.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Lists of names, enemies to be purged, it's not illegal if the president does it.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I've been watching some reaction/interpretation to this ruling. The worst part of it seems to be, if an act is initially deemed as "official", then the president cannot even be investigated or asked questions about the discussions had to make that decision. Even though Barrett sided with the majority, she actually dissented on this part because the inability to even scrutinise the discussions or actions between a president and the DOJ means that "unofficial" acts in the pursuit of official ones can never be investigated. So, in theory, there will never be an ability to investigate a President, because even if every unofficial and illegal act is use to achieve the goals of an "official" action, the very nature of it being official means nothing else matters and you can't ask questions and you can never investigate to argue that an "official act" is actually "unofficial".
Once an act is deemed official, there will never be a possibility to hold that person to account.
That is absolutely terrifying.
Once an act is deemed official, there will never be a possibility to hold that person to account.
That is absolutely terrifying.
Well, I will be job hunting in a year.
Roger Taney and William Rehnquist are looking up from hell with a proud twinkle in their eye.
Can’t do much but laugh.
Now that I've left the country I'm gonna vote for Trump. He'll be good for my investments and he tells it like it is.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
That's when you know it is REALLY terrifying.
Is it the worst decision in history as it pertains to checks and balances?
You don’t understand them because you aren’t a christo-fascist zealot. I imagine that when it was a balanced court, the right wing judges were often more restrained in their judgements even when dissenting. Now they have a majority, they know that even their most extreme opinions are no longer off the menu so they’re becoming more and more emboldened.
Is the Supreme Court the worst part of the American checks and balances system?
As far as I can tell, they are unelected (unlike other branches of the government), sit lifelong with no mechanism to remove them, are technically completely objective and therefore maintain a veneer of accountability (even though they're clearly incredibly partisan) and their decisions are final, can't be overturned and have consequences at the national level.
I mean....what the feck?
As far as I can tell, they are unelected (unlike other branches of the government), sit lifelong with no mechanism to remove them, are technically completely objective and therefore maintain a veneer of accountability (even though they're clearly incredibly partisan) and their decisions are final, can't be overturned and have consequences at the national level.
I mean....what the feck?
That's not technically true. With 2/3rd of the senate and a majority in the House, they can be removed (similar to the president, VP etc).
As I see, I didn't know that. Thank you.
Can't Biden just order a hit man to take the lot of them out then? If you are immune to actions taken while President, why not have them assassinated? Or Trump even.
The idea that they are unelected and therefore not beholden to public pressure, was supposed to be part of why they're an important part of the the checks and balances to a three tier system of governance. Unfortunately, what has gradually happened over the past 40 years is both parties have selected justices that they believe conform to their political platforms, which has over time created a very politicized court. There is no remedy for the problem given that it would take an amendment to the constitution to change the process. Either party could also try to increase the amount of justices to the court, but that wouldn't work for long either as it wouldn't fix the fundamental problem of Presidents and Senates continuing to add politically leaning justices in the future.
This is the true genius of the Founding Fathers....to maintain power for rich, white dudes.
What a great opportunity for me to yet again recommend the podcast series The Land That Never Has Been yet by Scene on Radio. It's season 4. The website seems to be down right now, but it's on all the podcasty places.
https://sceneonradio.org/the-land-that-never-has-been-yet/
They just started season 7, which is about Capitalism.
https://sceneonradio.org/the-land-that-never-has-been-yet/
They just started season 7, which is about Capitalism.
He could be impeached. So definitely worth it.
Should this now be in fact..... not theory?
What were the Democrats thinking, when they pursued a disgruntled and obviously aged and 'dool-ally', and quite orange man, even after he left office and relinquished power?
True, he had given them Democrats some rough moments, in particular Hilary and her followers, he had been an enormous embarrassment with many people, inside and outside government/country..... but they (and the US) had survived and had the last laugh, he got voted out legally (even though he tried to say differently) and was replaced by a man older than he was.
Good result for the Democrats, you would have thought....... but no, even as Trump's orange glow was fading and less and less people, were asking 'where's Donald the X-president gone (back to his pad in Mar-a-Lago?), they had to give him a lesson.... one he would not forget;
Twice they tried to impeach him, got the courts to pursue him, even got him to believe he could revive his political ambitions. They even took him into a 'bear pit' of publicity (something which nobody enjoys more than 'the Donald') and most of all the 'stupid beggar's' pursued him through the courts.... sorry the law that is.....not the Democrats of course...
?But of course inevitably..... SCOTUS was always going to be where the 'end game' played out, and it was stacked in his favour; plus he had thousands if not millions of free publicity given him on the way.
Now the country does have a 'King type' ruler position, not a President, someone who effectively in whatever they do as 'the President' .....will be deemed to be above the law.
Future US generations will shake their heads in wonder at today's Democratic leaders, especially if "the man who would be King" (apologies to Kipling) actually makes it back to the Palace.
Last edited:
You just know when they talk about presidential immunity it only applies to Republican presidents. Absolutely bent and partisan.
Can't Biden just officially steal the elections now. He can order any ballots destroyed. He can stop the count anywhere he wants. Seems an easy win if Biden understands what's going on.
this is a really good article about the court... from 2020. talks about court-packing and what it implies, but then moves to a more basic solution.
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.or...is-the-liberal-position-on-the-supreme-court/
e - same thing here https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-better-option-court-packing-095501227.html?guccounter=1
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.or...is-the-liberal-position-on-the-supreme-court/
e - same thing here https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-better-option-court-packing-095501227.html?guccounter=1