“If these conservative justices want to make public policy, they should simply quit the Supreme Court and run for political office”
Why do that when they can exploit a shitty system instead? They now are there for the rest of their lives and can interpret the law to mean whatever they want and there is no legal recourse to do anything about it as long as their corrupt party has enough power to prevent impeachment.
Plus they can receive bribes just like politicians too, so the “low” salary (far higher than most people will ever make, but tbf a significant amount of training required to reach that point) isn’t an issue.
We called for this on day 1 of Biden’s first term…
He chose to put a bipartisan committee in charge of seeing if we should just let the corrupt Republican SC stay in power, and the committee waited two years till dems didnt have the numbers to fix anything, before recommending Dems don’t fix anything.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/biden-support-expanding-supreme-court-white-house/story?id=85703773
The aristocrats! /s
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
You can’t reform the court without a Constitutional Amendment since the operation and formation of the court is defined by the Constitution.
So, 2/3rds vote in the House, 2/3rds vote in the Senate, ratification by the States.
If the Republicans take the Senate and White House, they will ditch the filibuster the first day the next Senate leader takes the gavel. Count on it.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 should be amended today, and 4+ justices should be confirmed before January. It’s a hell of a lot easier to confirm them now than it will be for Republicans to remove them from the bench next year. Not easy, mind you, but easier.
And 2/3 of both houses is easy mode compared to State ratification. We couldn’t get states to agree that the sky is blue at this point in the collapse of the country.
There are a few ways to reform the court without a Constitutional amendment:
- Increase the number of justices on the bench. The Constitution sets no limit or requirement for the number of seats, only the process by which they are filled. Nomination comes from POTUS and will need to be “consented” to by the Senate. The number of seats has changed in the past and will change again, just a matter of when and who stuffs the court.
- Establish bounds of “good Behavior” and define means of removal. The Constitution isn’t very cut and dry on the removal process of Justices (with impeachment being reserved for the “President, Vice President, and all civil Officers” the latter group being left undefined), but it does say that the Judges shall “hold their Offices during good Behavior.” Historically impeachment has been the process chosen for removal of Judges, but discussion about Congress’ role in defining “good Behavior” and the means for removal have persisted even into the late 1900s. It is entirely feasible that Congress imposes a code of conduct and simple majority review to remove those found in violation. That code of conduct doesn’t just have to be about taking free vacations, either. It could assess the quality of judgement and find that if you clearly ignored the facts of a case to push your own narrative (such as with KENNEDY v. BREMERTON) you’re in violation.
- Establish a term limit for the Supreme Court and rotate Justices into lower courts when that limit is reached. This one is probably the longest shot as it would depend on whether or not a Justice’s “Office” is literally the Supreme Court or the federal Judicial system as a whole and that interpretation would almost definitely be seized by SCOTUS if Congress even attempted this. But, so long as Congress and the Executive are in agreement on the specific interpretation, SCOTUS’ opinion here can be suppressed. Worth noting, however, that that is very rarely how the US operates.
- Remove Judicial Review. The idea that the courts have the sole authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation passed by Congress is not found in the Constitution itself, but was manifested by the same court that benefits from granting itself that power. It’s the executive branch’s job to enforce the law and both Congress and POTUS are elected to represent the people. SCOTUS’s job is to resolve conflicts involving the States and those who work with them, they are not accountable to anyone and are not elected. A new law ceding the ability to review constitutionality to some other branch would reset SCOTUS’ job to the original intent (a move which I’m sure the 6 textual literalists will gladly embrace).
- Tailor bills to undo recent catastrophic rulings. Congress makes laws. They can make laws that close “loopholes” or perceived ambiguities that SCOTUS uses to derive their rulings. Congress can (and should) undo presidential immunity, Dobbs, judicial review of government agencies’ actions, etc.
These will all take work to achieve, and are very unlikely to even be tried, but because they all address shortcomings manifest outside of the Constitution they can all be implemented without amendment to the Constitution.
As long as the Dems have less than 60 votes in the Senate, and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
*and even the number of democrats minus 50 don’t want to. So even one (plus Harris helping) in the first two years of the term or even two (if Harris helps again) in the second two years of the past term. It’s not like all democrats are unified about the filibuster, most voted to bypass it. You need either more than 60 dems total, or more than 50 dems that support bypassing the filibuster.
Or you know, even a single republican that doesn’t want to be a facist helping to transition the country to authoritarian rule. But that seems less likely unfortunately.
and aren’t willing to ditch the fucking filibuster, there’s literally nothing they can do.
That’s the rub.
We have things we can do, but party leadership don’t want to do it.
So when they say they can’t do anything, things like “get rid of the filibuster” come up. And they party has to acknowledge that would work…
They’re just not willing to do it.
Which when that comes back to voters, makes them less likely to vote. Because they feel like even when we have the numbers, it won’t change anything because party leadership wants to have the fight against fascism with at least one hand tied behind their back out of an outdated sense of honor.
We’re fucking fighting fascism bro.
What matters is winning.
Once they legalized coups, they lost all legitimacy in my opinion.
The SCOTUS situation is scarier than the POTUS situation which was already frightening enough.
Don’t forget they legalized bribery long before making coups legal. That’s when they were testing the waters. Now they know they can be blatent with their rulings and noone will hold them accountable.
The silver lining here is they have no power of enforcement themselves, and their decisions can be reversed if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine to do so.
Democrats just need to get Biden out of the race so Trump can be kept out of office. And the house majority is very slim, so that can potentially be flipped too if the base can actually be energized instead of suppressed the way they have been. Democrats win when there is high turn out, so the name of the game needs to be showing people that Democrats are capable of listening.
they have no power of enforcement themselves
…which is why they’re working in tandem with the corrupt GOP, which does have the power. There isn’t a separation of powers in practice, just Democrats and Republicans.
Yes, what I’m saying is if you can keep the GOP out of power you hobble the supreme court. Like I said, it’s a source of hope and a goal to aim your political effort towards, not a permanent solution.
People downvoting this seem confused. I made the assumption people were able to understand I was talking longer term fight.
…if a sane court is built around them by leaders with enough spine
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
And even then what would the new court do? If they go back to operating the way they did before this judicial coup, that wouldn’t actually fix any of the damage done. Or remove the traitor sitting on the SCOTUS.
A court with more judges would water down the influence of any extremists.
But yes, packing the court alone doesn’t guaruntee the court can’t be captured again. What Elie Mystal suggested way back when the court majority had flipped was basically two things that should happen:
-
expand the court by alot, maybe somewhere within 20-30, similar to the 9th circuit that’s just below the Supreme Court. This helps dilute the power of individual crazies like Alito and then
-
Rotate judges out routinely to other federal positions. This allows for their life-time appointment still, but ensures also that, due to the high number of justices, every administration is getting an opportunity to appoint a few judges every time. That revolving door means it wpuld require multiple far-right administrations to pin the court down like it is now.
There’s no reason the court needs to be nine justices, we’ve had more and less throughout our history as a nation, and there’s no reason that the courts power needs to be concentrated into the hands of so few individuals, since the purpose of the court is suppose to be a moderating force of legal scholars, not an explicitly partisan body.
None of this addresses my point. There isn’t the political power to do it.
And even if there was, the court has already essentially overturned precedent as a concept. That can’t just be rolled back without completely reworking the court, which…see my first point…
Yes, it depends up getting people out to vote, especially in mid-terms.
Precedent is literally just a tradition that’s agreed upon, there’s nothing binding judges to adhere to it, which is why the supreme court was so easily able to ignore it.
So in that sense it’s a double-edged sword, it’s just as easy for judges to rule by precedent as it is for them to not, it’s always been this way.
There isn’t the political power to do it.
That’s the entire problem, full stop. This wouldn’t even have gotten to SCOTUS if Congress would have held POTUS accountable via impeachment. The reason Congress didn’t is partially due to political pressure from voters but mostly because the HoR is far too small to adequately represent 300,000,000 people.
-
Lack of spine isn’t the issue. It’s lack of political power.
The court literally just gave Biden the power.
No, they get to decide what an official act is. So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act. They get to decide what official acts are. So everyone Rubepublican has free reign and every democrat is boxed in.
So the only way this works out is Biden 66ing the extremist judges and the remaining vote that it was an official act.
Yep, that’s what I said: the court literally just gave Biden the power to do that.
But, he could do anything else and they’d rule it as unofficial as long as they breathe
…as long as they breathe
True, but they wouldn’t be anymore, in this hypothetical scenario. I’m not sure why we’re belaboring that point.
Frankly, the writing has been on the wall since they overturned the election in 2000; it’s just gotten a lot more blatant.
*Coups are only legal if initiated by the President.
Presidents can have a little coup, as a treat
Yes, but only Republicans, Amiright?
Correct. I think that’s the part many keep missing. SCOTUS just gave themselves the authority to determine if a Presidential act is immune from oversight. Which will no doubt be abused to help Republicans do whatever they want. But hamstring anything a Dem would attempt to accomplish.
**Only official coups
Hmmm, I wonder if the left or any democracy loving peoples can create a temporary armed anti-coup force, just in case?
If we can organize to that level, why not take it one step farther? We could have actual democracy. It’d be a lot more stable, and more people would be willing to fight (and die) for it than preserving a broken status quo that pretty much everyone hates.
Ehh, because revolution is insanely hard, while something more directed with a single goal is possibly more feasible. That’s what I’m thinking.
Ber-nie! Ber-nie! Ber-nie!
Bernie/AOC ticket 2024 plz
Or 2028 if we still have elections then
I love Bernie, but he’s 82 and has heart disease.
Would be easily the biggest age gap between president and vice president
Trump is mentally challenged and he’s still running
Idk. I feel like Jay Pritzker/Warren 2028 would be fucking sweet
Nah, I’d take a turd sandwich over Pritzker any day.
My god can we get a younger social Democrat please? Fuckin A I’m tired of people born before WW2 ended making all the policy decisions. I was going to say before the moon landing but they were all adults when that happened. They’re not even Boomers. They’re fucking older than boomers.
Who cares how old they are as long as they have the right positions on the issues and a sound mind? I love having people with some wisdom in there.
You’ve never seen what dementia can do to a person. Or, just the general confusion that comes with age. I’m happy for you, honestly it sucks to watch. Someone who used to know everything suddenly gets confused on the way to a restaurant they’ve been to a thousand times. Forgets why they called, or even that they called you in the first place. And, importantly, have their opinions flip on a dime with no warning whatsoever.
This isn’t necessarily dementia, it can be caused by any number of things, ailments that younger people would brush off without a thought.
You’ve never seen what dementia can do to a person.
Believe me, I know all too well. I’ve had a few family members die from Alzheimer’s. Losing someone is never easy, but you lose that person long before they pass away and it’s heartbreaking.
My point is that age is merely a number. There are people well above the age of Biden and have all their mental faculties.
This isn’t necessarily dementia
It’s almost certainly not dementia. He’s definitely in mental decline, and that is more than sufficient to explain what we’ve seen.
The problem is apparently having someone in office that will live long enough to actually reap what they sow. I didn’t used to think this would ever be a thing we’d have to be worried about, but, here we are. Environmental issues in particular hit this note I think.
Eh, people, especially the rich, will likely be living longer and longer. Also, only a total sociopath would not care about what their children and grandchildren, etc., have to face. Again, I think the important thing is competency and the policies they support (hopefully backed by evidence if they have a political past). Someone with a few years under their belt is also hopefully more likely to look at the longer span of things, given that they’ve ideally accrued some level of wisdom.
If someone is 90 and still mentally fit, and socially aware like Bernie would be far more preferable than some spry spring chicken that adores the likes of Steve Miller. Again, I think age is just a number. There is nothing inherently good or bad about someone being young (some younger people seem to be old souls and have a lot more wisdom than the number of times they circled the sun) - or old. IMHO.
I know this country has always worshiped youth, and that’s not fallen out of fashion just yet. I just happen to think that’s rather dumb.
Is there anyone younger with stances like Bernie?
Talib, AOC? Cori Bush?
Most of America. But they aren’t becoming politicians. Mostly because politicians are really bad people for the most part. You get maybe 5 percent that don’t have ulterior motives.
5 percent is awfully generous. Maybe it’s that high for people that try to run, but the vast majority of people that win are sucking someone’s teet.
Katie Porter & AOC would be amazing
If those two ran on a presidential ticket together, the Republican Party would dial up the “it’ll be the end times if they win and only our lord and savior Trump can stop it” to 1000.
Other than the actual real world insanity, I’d love to see them pop some blood vessels.
Bernie will be 87 in 2028.
AOC for president, Bernie for vice (cause ageist societal concerns).
Or, Bernie as President, AOC as Prime Minister (using SCOTUS’ ruling to rewrite all laws and current established government).
Why would we have a PM? We already have the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. And the PM wouldn’t be able to exercise any executive powers unless you burned the constitution, because separation of powers.
There’s not really a good reason to adopt a parliamentary system like the UK’s for example if we were to completely reform the government imo. Or to have a PM separate from the president at all.
Fucking Brilliant. Biden could just pull out the ol’ uno reverse right now.
No, you don’t solve the problem with another OLD white guy.
Why not? What does age have to do with it? Or his skin color? Or being male?
Is it the age that bothers you or is it the cognitive decline/attitudes that typically come with age?
I don’t know much about Bernie but it seems like he doesn’t have much of the latter
Both.
Examples of declining cognition from Bernie?
I don’t have to give you any examples, I think he’s too old.
May your opinions be evidence-based, and your day good.
It doesn’t matter. Sanders chance came and went. At least he’s in capital hill still.
Well that’s not a very convincing argument.
I’m not arguing about anything.
Honestly, the only problem I really have with Biden is superficial, and it’s mostly because most other people are superficial.
This election can only be won by breaking apathy. That takes a confident and strong speaker. Apathetic voters don’t watch the news every day. They don’t know what Biden is up to. But debates are like the Superbowl of politics, and even is they don’t watch the whole game, they won’t be able to avoid the highlights.
That performance did not inspire confidence. He was meek and paled next to Trump’s booming confident voice. Doesn’t matter that he was spewing shit, he sounded good doing it.
Could you imagine Obama doing that? Or Bill Clinton? Hell no. Those guys were popular because they had confidence. They oozed it, but not at the point where they appear arrogant.
Bidens strategy should have been to turn off his speaker whenever Trump talked and just guessing what he said and rebutting that. You can’t counter his every point, it takes far more work to dismantle a lie than it is to make one.
I know Biden is smart, I know he’s a skilled politician and I know that he’s got a hell of a staff and cabinet. And ultimately that’s really the biggest criteria for an administration.
I wouldn’t mind him tapping out and calling in a pitch hitter though. A stronger and more confident candidate, with Bidens endorsement, could take it. Bernie, but younger. Obama, but white (anything else is sadly a non-starter for too many purple states). Bill, but less pervy. That’s what will win the election.
In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:
“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
Nope, the real lie was SCOTUS was becoming liberal instead of just making a few liberal rulings here and there. This was used as a battle cry to put in more conservatives, remember the “activists” judges they were wringing their hands about. So now we don’t even get a few liberal rulings sprinkled here and there.
Full stop, SCOTUS has always been conservative. History has already proven this
I wonder why you’d prefer a partisan court?
I did not say I support it, just that it has always been conservative. I am pretty sure I was agreeing with you just elaborating on a point.
Well when we have a Right Wing party (Democrats) and a Fascism Party (Republicans) one of those is preferable to the other
Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?
“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
Specifically, immunity from civil damages. The president couldn’t be sued by randos claiming he cost them a job or whatever.
This is a new class of fascism. Keep on trollin’.
deleted by creator
The president has always enjoyed immunity for performing official duties. Obviously.
That’s true other than it’s absolutely not.
No? Can the president be charged with murder for telling the military to drone strike someone? No they cannot, because they are immune. They have to have some immunity in order to execute their duties.
This most recent ruling wildly expanded the immunity, added presumed immunity for adjacent actions, and phrased everything in such a way that actually prosecuting the president for literally anything will take years.
Say the president does something you think is illegal and should be prosecuted. Stop. Before you can take him to court over that, you need to determine if what he did was “official” or “unofficial.” SCOTUS didn’t give deterministic guidelines to differentiate, so you need to have a separate court case just for that. Alright so let’s have the court case that determines whether what the president did was official or unofficial. Let’s introduce some evidence—
Stop. Evidence from official acts cannot be introduced in a case to prove something was unofficial. So you actually need to have a separate court case to determine if that evidence is official or unofficial. Once you have your results, one party won’t like it and will appeal it up and up to the supreme court. Repeat for potentially every single piece of evidence.
Okay now that we know what evidence we can and can’t introduce, we can finally determine if what the president did was official or unofficial. Once we have a result, one party won’t like it and it will be appealed all the way up to the supreme court again. Only when SCOTUS rules the action was unofficial (IF they rule it was unofficial) can you then BEGIN the process of actually taking the president to court over that action.
This will take years, not to mention the supreme court is appointed by the president and it recently ruled that taking bribes after you do something instead of before is perfectly legal actually. This is all by design. The point is to keep this all tied up in court for years, which effectively gives the president full immunity for everything. And he can also pressure the courts or judges to rule his way via any number of threats (if you think that’s an unofficial act, feel free to take him to court over it).
This is pretty clearly designed to functionally protect the president from all culpability (which the dissenting SCOTUS opinions agree on, ergo their dissent).
Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.
Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.
Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.
You can’t charge them for war crimes bc war crime isn’t a US law. This didn’t exist before and the official unofficial distinction was explicitly created in the ruling. The above post outlines exactly the process now established to block any case, suggesting that because a more ridiculously comically corrupt version of a ruling exist that this isn’t it nonsense and clearly demonstrative of your goal to spin propaganda.
Your post is a lie, self contradictory and explicit propaganda. Your account should be blocked and banned.
Well, didn’t take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?
The thing is, this country has existed for nearly 250 years without this ruling and the president having any sort of immunity. The idea that we suddenly need this is ridiculous. So what changed? Well, Trump of course. And yes, this is all about Trump. This ruling didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from Trump making claims about immunity, the lower courts dismissing the claims as nonsense, until the supreme court took it up and here we are.
Let’s follow that logic.
You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.
Same scenario, but now it’s the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?
It’s simple really. It’s not murder when someone in the military kills an enemy combatant. Murder is illegally taking another’s life, and members of the military can legally kill enemy combatants. That’s laid out in the Geneva Conventions and all of that.
The President is the commander in chief, so he doesn’t need immunity to order some terrorists taken out. That’s the way it’s worked for nearly 250 years. Joe Citizen is not a member of the military and is not the president, so generally they can expect to get in trouble for that sort of thing.
The President can order some terrorists killed the same way a fighter pilot can shoot down an enemy plane, a soldier can throw a grenade into an enemy foxhole, or navy captain can order the shelling of an enemy position.
Also note that immunity here doesn’t mean something is legal for that person. The act is still just as illegal as it has always been. It just means that the person who has immunity can’t be prosecuted for it. And in the case of absolute immunity, can’t even be charged for it, unlike things like qualified immunity where someone can still be charged and then can argue immunity as their defense the courts get to decide if it actually applies.
As such, a member of the military doesn’t have or need immunity, because what they are doing isn’t illegal. That also applies to the president in that sort of situation.
United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018
Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”
That’s a different thing entirely. Members of the US military don’t have combatant immunity when it comes to the US legal system, because what they are doing is legal in terms of the law. Combatant immunity would apply if they are captured as a POW by another nation following the Geneva conventions, which basically says that nation can’t charge them for acts of warfare, murder, etc. for participating in the war as a combatant. So long as they weren’t committing war crimes or something along those lines. So once again the President, as the commander in chief, doesn’t need immunity to order an airstrike or whatever, because it’s already legal for him/her to do so.
damages liability
it’s okay, reading is hard
I copy and pasted from the 1981 ruling. Anyway, hope you have a good one!
He’s pointing out what you posted says damages liability, which means something completely different. Basically means I couldn’t have sued Regan for fucking over 90% of the American populous financially. It doesn’t mean he has immunity to everything that is an official act. Big difference.
Indeed it does. The president has always had immunity. This is civil immunity. There is also criminal immunity because you can’t prosecute the president for ordering the deaths of thousands of people. Unlike say, you know if I was responsible for thousands of deaths. Or even one death. The president must have some immunity to carry out their duty as commander and chief. We have laws against murder. Ever find it funny you can’t go after the president for murder? No, you never once considered it.
Can you show me anywhere in the constitution that says you can’t, because it is a responsibility of the people according to the constitution for the people to stop them from doing such shit.
Keep being the sheep you want to be. Get down on your knees and bow next.
That Liberal Media that keeps treating Trump like a real candidate despite the 34 felonies?
You disagree with 74 million people then?
I do, and I’m tired of pretending I don’t.
Ok, but to do this, the Dems would need a blowout election in their favor. They would need to retake the House and have a commanding lead in the Senate so that they can get this passed even with a couple turncoats.
No shit.
Someone’s gotta say it, because too much of the narrative is “it’s no big deal lol” to keep people complacent.
I wish the dnc didn’t fuck him over
Me too. Well, I guess I’ll support the dnc anyway and vote for biden/genocide because I prefer trump’s policies with biden’s veneer of politeness rather than trump’s policies with trump’s veneer of impoliteness.
You’re free to commit terroristic political assassinations if you feel the two party system is too restrictive. It worked fine for Oswald.
It also works well for the CIA, which has been rescuing Nazis and assassinating leftwing political leaders around the world for decades. Oswald was also working for them. Oh well, back to watching CIA talking heads on MSNBC / CNN / the New York Times / the glorified reddit with extra steps known as lemmy
I wish I lived in your world where people were actually competent.
But in the real world, the CIA, working in Lebanon, used a code word “Pizza” to literally mean, go to the local Pizza Hut for more orders. Hezbollah used their amazing deductive reasoning skills to crack the code, and then just had people watch that particular Pizza Hut. They ended up outing about a dozen highly trained CIA agents and the informants they were meeting with.
In the 60s, these chuckle fucks were too busy secretly dosing each other with LSD to actually get anything done.
Every revolution or regime change that the CIA was involved in ended up a complete clusterfuck. Look at the Bay of Pigs as an example.
The only thing they’ve ever been good at is smuggling drugs, and they only reason they were good at that is that they could tell the DEA to look the other way.
And there are stories of fuckups from CIA drug smuggling. Like Iran-Contra. The Contra were trading drugs for guns so they could literally run around as right-wing death squads.
Anyway, this is a long rant to say that the CIA wishes they were competent enough to have been behind Oswald. They were not then, and are not now. But they love the PR, and some of them might even believe the bullshit. Doesn’t make it true.
Remind me who placed the Shah in power in Iran. Also, please tell me about the coup in Guatemala. Who was running Cuba before the workers/peasants sent nazis like yourself packing?
I’m not saying the CIA doesn’t do damage, I’m saying that they’re not competent enough to do it on purpose.
The CIA wishes they did even a quarter of the shit people say they do, but are not actually masterminds. Because no one is. No one runs the world, and Color Revolution is made up nonsense.
The CIA cut a deal with a general in Iran to overthrow the government, but that general was already planning the coup before the CIA caught wind of it. But wouldn’t you guess, the guy the CIA backed didn’t actually win in the end.
As to Cuba, did you know that the CIA tried to kill Castro like 30 times? Some of the attempts read like a Three Stooges routine.
The KGB was just as bad. Their fuckups are less documented because of how controlled the media is in Russia and the USSR before it’s fall.
Guatemala, Iran, the Congo, and the Dominican Republic are all listed here:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/20/mapped-the-7-governments-the-u-s-has-overthrown/
This doesn’t include Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Israel, where the CIA has been heavily involved for decades. They were also very much involved in destroying the USSR, now that you mention it, and happily admit to all of this (in addition to rescuing thousands of high-profile nazis). They’ve also admitted to controlling the corporate media (Operation Mockingbird) and just admitted to pushing anti-vaxx propaganda in the Philippines. Millions of needless deaths can easily be attributed to them. Do you enjoy listening to people who rescue nazis telling you how to think on CNN and in the NYT?
Vote harder, change the party from inside, blue no matter who!
In other words everyone, things are not going according to Liberals/Democrats, so, we need to change the entire structure, Constitution, and political system in America.
There’s a fucking Democrat in the position that the Supreme Court just handed a blank check to, and you think they’re worried because that aren’t getting what they want as opposed to how that power might be abused?
What kinda crack are you smoking?
The Democrats are fucking weak, and although I will continue to vote for them, i am ashamed of them.
Biden won’t do shit with his newfound power, even though he should to defend this country because it’s under attack.
Republicans’ stated goal is to change the entire structure and political system in America and the 6-3 ideologically Christian scotus has already begun ignoring the constitution.
This is the very definition of a constitutional and democratic crisis. If democrats don’t do something as the only other party with any power, republicans will make sure they no longer have the opportunity the first chance they get.
Now is really not the time for “both sides” logic to prevent democrats from acting.
Likely the nuclear option for a lame duck Biden.
Damn bruh if only we had the power to summarily imprison those greasy fucks.
Biden does if he deems it an official act!
We could’ve had Bernie in the Whitehouse. He really could have been president. This country is doomed.
I’ve said this so many times
We could’ve had Gore back in 2000. Oh wait…
Yeah, election stealing is at this point just a past time hobby for Republicans
It’s tough for the Democrats, to be just progressive enough as to not piss off too many red/purple states.
I remember arguing with my boomer parents about Sanders when he was winning primaries. I shit you not, my mother looked me dead in the eye and said: “Bernie is too old. We need Biden.”
I’ll definitely never forget that.
That one year made a huge difference, I guess.
I made that argument too. Something tells me there was something else about Bernie she didn’t like. But she was a “lifelong democrat” and “didn’t have a problem” with socialism, so… anyone’s guess! /s
The SC sure as fuck wouldn’t have given him the power to legally assassinate fascists trying to overthrow democracy on the expectation he wouldn’t use it.
It’s not too late to pack that fucker. Sinema and Manchin could sit it out while Harris breaks the ties. Judicial nominations do not have the filibuster. If you’re looking for a campaign season pick me up, this kind of direct response to SCOTUS going off the rails is something that could do it.
Fucking fight Dems, and you’ll get backed up. We’re tired of watching you do nothing while the GOP pisses on everything. This would be a great way to demonstrate that a vote for Biden is for more than a neoliberal order controlling a sleepy old man.
Yes it is. That opportunity passed in 2022 when the Dems lost control of the House.
Fun fact, the Constitution gives authority to make new SCOTUS judges to the Senate and the President. Congress as a whole only has the power to organize courts below SCOTUS. The entire idea that the house can set the size of the court is unsupported.
Sinema and Manchin could sit it out
Big problem. They are Republicans in Democrat clothes. They will, as they always do, find a reason to vote against
Then play hardball with them, get on board or get primaried by an opponent with the backing of the DNC.
It’s worked for the right, they’re terrified of their constituents.
They don’t care. Both already got paid and are quitting last I read.
I thought that eliminating the filibuster took a 3/5th vote in the senate. That’s 60 votes. We are nowhere close, though I support holding it to a vote to put it on the record, to highlight the hypocrisy later.
The filibuster is already gone in regards to judicial appointments, The Republicans killed it and the Democrats didn’t bring it back. But also, yeah the chamber rules are a simple majority vote. It’s Manchin and Sinema keeping that from happening, but also without the house of representatives it’s kind of useless to get rid of it right now.
The Dems could also get rid of the filibuster right now. Getting rid of it completely only requires a majority and Republicans already proved they will drop it the moment it isn’t useful to them to obstruct Dems like they did with judicial nominations.
As correct as Bernie Sanders has been his entire life, he’s also right here.
Granting one branch of government absolute and unfettered authority is the end of stable government.
SCOTUS has nearly unfettered authority as long as Congress remains dysfunctional in keeping them in check. They’re just passing the power along.
Passing the power along to only anyone they agree with. Biden? Not an official act. Trump? All official acts. They just gave more power to themselves and the presidency.
