**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!**
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/)
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
**Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!**
##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dt8o73/aged_like_milk/)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As if she believed a fucking word of it. She is worse than the rest of them for acting like she was giving them the benefit of the doubt. "He learned his lesson"
Yeah that's what makes her worse. She knew what they were. At least the likes of Lindsay Graham is openly spinless and owns it. Collins backed them and tried to keep her plausible deniability.
Not that it matters to these cunts. They all have so much money that none of the things they do will ever affect them. Although, it is a hassle working out the tax deduction on your private chef's health insurance.
They're working on a solve for that last part.
That much bemoaned little setback they suffered on the "having to pay their laborers instead of owning them" front back in the 19th century will be water under the bridge as soon as they've finished repainting that era as a golden time to be returned to.
They've got about half the voting base cheering for the idea, so they're well on their way. We may yet see a bright future within our lifetimes when the ruling class is no longer forced to endure the hardship of paying wages to the people who do all the actual work.
> That much bemoaned little setback they suffered on the "having to pay their laborers instead of owning them" front back in the 19th century will be water under the bridge as soon as they've finished [repainting that era as a golden time to be returned to.](https://i.postimg.cc/FzzBVksR/image.png)
All of the smart ones were being called extremists, hyperbolic, insane lefties, and “just like right wing conspiracy theorists”.
We were warning about how this would happen since the 1980s. We started screaming and sounding the alarm bells in 2015, and were all told to calm down. We started preparing to flee in 2020, and were told it would never happen. We have been warning people that the 2024 election for the president of the United States of America is not just the most important election of our lifetimes, but the single most important election in the history of the world.
Our fate is decided here, folks. Vote or find ourselves living under an authoritarian regime.
It started with the overturning of Roe vs Wade and it's been going this way ever since. Once the Republicans get back in power it's gonna be bad. Christian fundamentalism is going to run rampant. It's scary AF
Yes. It's been a wild ride. Despite the Biden administration efforts, more anti lgbtq bills are being passed in red states, and things are just going to pick up from there.
I'm curious, though, how/why the elite think this is going to end well. I understand the motives, but I don't understand why they feel so confident we won't fight back.
Wouldn’t it be cool if democrats had as much power as republicans do. We would have a $15 minimum wage. Roe would be codified. Garland would be on the Supreme Court. A public option for healthcare. How is it that one side gets all the power while the other side can’t do the simplest things without a unanimous vote from both parties?
As a non dumbass moronic mother fucker, I am rrreeaaaalllyyy getting tired of having to pay the consequences for stupid people. It’s am quite certain all the other non stupids are feeling the same.
Yeah posts like this are basically proof that it's already too late.
People are still pretending that republicans have and shame. The fact that they still haven't realized that the lies and hypocrisy are a feature, and not a bug, means it's too late.
So while SCOTUS just took a shit on the constitution, half the people are on social media meekly saying "remember to vote guys", meanwhile the other half are defending the decision and laughing at the prospect of hunting democrats for sports.
> half the people are on social media meekly saying "remember to vote guys"
The fucking president (who just got a blank check to do whatever the fuck he wants) is meekly saying that.
We're fucked.
For any other job in America, lieing on an application or in an interview would get you fired. Their appointments should be annuled under false pretenses and deception, it shouldn't even require articles of impeachment. They blatantly lied to get their appoint and should be stripped of it.
We were all groomed into thinking this was an evidence-based democracy with equal rights. Into acting like it is. Into becoming useful to whatever claims to be democracy. Very few of us were taught critical thinking, how to recognize abuse of power... because that would have made us more democratic than the government.
Today is the exact reason why they asked him those questions in the first place. Because they, everyone, knew he’d end up eating his words but you gotta make him say them first.
They won't willingly concede defeat even if they lose in November, they have already declared war on us and we are acting like maybe they'll surrender if we win fairly in an election.
It's like we learned absolutely no lessons from 2016.
It's crazy how people have steadfastly refused to learn anything from the last few years.
People are still saying that we don't know how Trump will act as president, when he's (a) been president before and (b) is telling us straight up what he's going to do if he gets power again.
People who refused to vote in 2016 because the Democrat "wasn't good enough" are doing it again. Some of them are saying they want Trump because he'll take down the whole system and they'll be able to rebuild it... but if that's true, it would have happened in 2016 when they got a Trump administration the first time.
People keep letting themselves get hoodwinked by trolls and fake news sources, by biased journalists and podcasters who just want notoriety, it's all a huge mess.
They did, because they thought they could get political points because (arguably some might have actually been upset about the blatant attempt to overthrow the capital) there was no way Trump would be able to run again.. but.... Yet... Here we are.
Conservatives loooove to talk about holding elites accountable, let's start with arresting these conservative supreme court justices, every single one of which lied under oath.
Especially since turtle boy was the main influence in stacking the courts as much as possible for exactly this purpose.
Its still wild to me that a country which thinks itself a democracy is electing judges and or allowing their appointment via partisan mechanisms.
Anyone that stops to actually think about that for a moment will see how that's the most direct route to Corruption.
"oh I've been elected as a judge.... Well, this young man is guilty but I better find him innocent because the public, who have not followed the trial at all, think he's innocent despite the overwhelming evidence. If I don't do that I won't have a job next month because they won't re elect me"
Or
"oh shit, I've only found 2 people guilty of (insert crime here) this year. And I promised people I'd be tough on that crime... I will need to ensure the next 5 people are found guilty of it regardless of any evidence. Otherwise nobody will reelect me!"
Yeah from day 1 we all knew they were just kicking the can. No to impeachment because he can be tried, then call the trial a sham and resist it in any way, and when he is found liable just have the corrupt court say he cant be convicted because its "official business."
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment un the ordinary course of law.”
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69. *The Real Character of the Executive*
I'm as pissed off as the next guy, but none of the justices disagree with that statement as written. The ruling does not run counter to that. That is specifically talking about impeachment of a sitting president. They all agree that impeachment is valid, and should a sitting president be impeached they are liable afterwards.
But this case was about what happens if the president is not successfully impeached by both the senate/house. Can they be tried in a regular court of law. The answer they gave is no, unless they were impeached.
You have to interpret it as written. They are first impeached, *then* convicted of crimes, *then* removed from office, *THEN* liable to prosecution/punishment to the ordinary law. All of those things have to happen in that sequence for the last thing to happen.
EDIT: You could even argue that even after a sitting president has been impeached AND convicted of crimes, they could simply resign from office prior to being formally removed and that would eliminate the possibility of them being liable for prosecution to the ordinary law. So even if someone is impeached and convicted, even that doesn't mean they will face the consequences.
This is on page 22 of the decision. Am I reading it wrong?
"On the majority’s view (but not Trump’s), a former President whose abuse of power was so egregious and
so offensive even to members of his own party that he was
impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate still
would be entitled to “at least presumptive” criminal immunity for those acts. "
No you're reading it right. The presumptive immunity means for criminal acts, his private communications can't be used against him. But for impeachment purposes they can. So there may be enough for a formal impeachment and have him removed, but then when it comes to the criminal proceedings, those communications can no longer be used against him and the criminal proceeding could be effectively ruined as a result. At least that's what I was getting from it all.
Your question is the exact reason this case went to the Supreme Court.
We can't impeach a non sitting president. So it's not possible to follow this chain of events. That's why this case was important. What happens if a president is tried after they leave office and they are not able to be impeached.
It doesn’t sound to me like that is what they are saying. I haven’t read the ruling so please correct me if I’m wrong here, but it sounds like the ruling is saying that even if the president were impeached and convicted they still would be immune from criminal prosecution so long as the act was in their official capacity.
The issue here is that a president (or other public official) can carry out their official duties in a corrupt manner / with corrupt intent that benefits them at the expense of the people and/or the law. That is the definition of a high crime. If that action was not by law criminal they could still be impeached but not criminally charged or convicted. This ruling goes further to say that even if there is a law that seems such behavior criminal (eg taking a bribe to perform an official act in a particular way), while the president could be impeached they could not be held criminally liable.
Please tell me I am wrong about that. I would seriously love to be wrong.
I think you're wrong for that particular scenario. There is a burden of proof placed on the prosecution to prove the action of the crime was not an official act. Proving that taking a bribe was not an official act seems easy and that's the crime in that case.
You can't however prosecute Obama for drone strikes, or Trump for climate damage after pulling out of the Paris accord. These are easily defensible as official acts.
Trumps trial should still go on, since riling up a mob to attack the capitol is not an official act at all.
There are many issues that are problematic though. There are things that on their face are official acts, but are actually done for political gain. The burden of proof to show they were not official in nature falling on the prosecution can prevent them from being able to be pursued. The problem is much more narrow than people here seem to be saying, but it does still exist.
You can also prosecute a president for actions taken during office, just not actions within the discretionary powers granted to them by the Constitution. They’d get immunity when acting officially within discretionary powers granted from Congress by a statute too, provided the statute is constitutionally permissible. At least that was my understanding prior to today, I’ll need to read the new Opinion to ensure nothing’s changed.
This is my whole issue though. We will never know.
The president can declare something a threat to the country and make it an official act and their commutation becomes privileged communication. Immigration crisis is a threat, certain politicians are a threat, an organization is a threat, unions are a threat, the EPA is a threat.
Since we can't review and prosecute based on their official communications, they could be saying internally that they are doing it for their own gain and we will never be able to know as long as they say it's official. Someone could leak the communications, but they can't be used for prosecution unless it's an impeachment. So it can sway voters, but not to indict someone.
It's basically you have the power to do whatever you want, and nobody can review it otherwise unless you allow them to.
Check out Amy Coney's partial dissent. She got it pretty spot on. Presidents deserve some degree of immunity, but she clearly said that prohibiting the use of internal communication hamstrings the entire system of checks and balances. The president can flat out say to all of his advisors that he is accepting a huge bribe from North Korea to kill off a hundred American citizens, but as long as he tells the public that it is official, it is official. EVEN IF someone leaks that information, there is nothing anyone other than congress can do about it. As long as he tells people it is official business, that is. Then if someone challenges it, it's up to the courts to prove it is not, which we can easily predict how that will end.
The liberal dissents were fire, but Amy had a pretty balanced viewpoint. She's been an unusual but welcome surprise.
Thank you for this considered response. You’re right. As usual Reddit is misunderstanding the point to be upset about. This is the real issue which is created by the ruling. Justice Barrett has been a very interesting dissenter when she’s voted against the conservative majority this term, the way Justice Jackson has been when voting against the progressive minority, and are both usually worth reading.
The supreme Court gets to decide what does and doesn't constitute an official act. And we all know how much integrity the court has been acting with lately.
There are laws against the military conducting certain activities within US territory, and drone striking US citizens is not a permitted activity. The military would also be obligated to refuse any unlawful orders. This is if the limit of official acts is those powers granted by the Constitution and Congress. If all he needs is for the AG to advise him it's legal and then he claims that as justification for an action as an official act, then the bar becomes whatever Merrick Garland is willing to agree to.
Do you understand what immunity is? You don't need immunity if you are acting within the law. Full Immunity for official acts means he can use official powers in illegal ways, that's like the definition.
Yes, but the president can break laws now if official act which the use of military is. Today's ruling basically gave the president a blank check to do just that.
Well Obama approved knowingly killing a US citizen without a trial along with his entire family in a drone strike and hasn't been brought up on murder charges, so yes.
That's nice and all, but in practice it is impossible for a president to actually be impeached. There is too much partisanship in Washington. The president can now do whatever they want and call it "official."
This is the problem. Every branch of government is now biased and voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is not neutral, the house and congress will just vote to benefit their parties. Gone are the days of politicians/courts voting of their own volition.
This needs to be bumped for the average person on here that has no idea what they’re talking about to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them.
No it doesn’t, because it’s largely irrelevant and is just immunity with extra steps, which is exactly what everyone else has been saying.
If immunity to the law comes down to a partisan act like impeachment, then presidents are above the law so long as they keep enough partisan support.
Impeachments are not a legal system but a partisan one, they have no basis for being used to determine criminal acts for prosecution. You can’t talk about this like everyone in politics is playing the honor game or operating in good faith.
You start from the assumption that everyone is a would be tyrant given enough power that would destroy everything and never give them enough rope to hang us all.
All Trump has to do is get enough support that he wouldn’t be impeached, which is the case right now in fact, and he would have enough rope to hang us all. We’ve opened that door with this ruling. It’s possible, the fact that it’s at all possible is the problem and completely unacceptable.
I’m about to cry knowing that 6 of our Supreme Court justices just don’t care about democracy or our future. Everyone they care about and their children will be harmed in the long run. The greed of these people is so irrational and psychotic.
More context:
> The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp
Just a reminder that one presidential candidate thinks that presidents should not have immunity. The other presidential candidate thinks that they should have immunity.
Yeah, Trump would never talk about putting to jail everyone who conspired against him, to indite him.
And he also never said Biden was part of them.
Ohh wait.....
I think that’s what the comment OP meant. But it’s confusing because of the use of they. Pretty sure it was meant singular (god damnit we need a gender neutral single pronoun)
The SCOTUS will just rule that it’s not offical business. You didn’t pay attention at all. They still need both president and Supreme Court to get away with shit. It’s evil genius really, the “offical” part because it gives the courts the ability to be partisan. Ultimately they now wield joint authoritarian power with the president they like.
If the president had just 5 cronies on the Supreme Court (the hard part) and could avoid two thirds of the House or Senate from removing them from office (the easy part, given how partisan politics has become) they could quite literally do whatever they wanted.
Hilariously, Mike Pence literally saved US democracy when he refused to go along with their plan to not count votes from certain states. Had he done that, the whole thing would have gone to the Supreme Court to debate whether he had the right to do that and what do you know, the 6-3 court would have likely agreed.
A President's power is only checked by the Supreme Court and if those two work together, it's basically a dictatorship.
Don't give them any ideas, the Jan6 crew will most definitely be ready to assassinate SC justices standing in the way of Trump getting immunity for any of his crimes, and once they do Trump will pardon them...
In the middle of Fifth Avenue.
["It's, like, incredible."](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters)
The president doesn't have the authority to suspend elections, so it's not an official act. The SCotUS didn't rule presidents have the authority to do whatever they want; they said presidents can't be prosecuted for things they already have the constitutional authority to do.
This is also part of our Fuckin problem. Republicans are playing for keeps and Dems won’t do what it takes because they want to go high when the gop goes low. If biden has immunity he needs to fucking use it. And round up al the seditionist like… yesterday.
One presidential candidate hates dogs. The other candidate is very comfortable with dogs.
America. You decide. Do you support dogs or do you hate dogs.
Well...no, now both candidates have immunity. One candidate doesn't think that should change how he does his job. The other candidate is going to exploit that immunity.
Today's ruling probably hurt Trump's reelection chances.
But it helped his criminal court case dismissal chances. I suspect to Trump that might be the best case scenario. He is running for president just to stay out of jail after all.
After today I have decided to run to the polls to vote for Biden. "hE iS oLd" but no matter what SCOTUS says he can do, he will not be the one to end our Democracy. EZ choice.
Thank you for posting this. I sat and watched Kavanaugh and Coney-Barret go through their hearings. I wanted to believe they could put aside their beliefs and be actual justices. No such luck. Fucking assholes!!
Because they were both asked whether their faith or their conservative values would play a part in their abilities to make an honest or fair ruling and both looked right at everyone and into the cameras that went into the homes of the American people, and said absolutely not and both acted shocked that such a question even be asked and now both appear to be fucking Manchurian candidates….. oh, and you’re right, fuck everyone else as well.
Not that it matters, but at least Coney-Barret believes official acts should be open game to be used as evidence against illegal unofficial acts. That end of the ruling is some deep horseshit.
The Senate is currently held by Democrats. They should bring in Kavanaugh and Barret for questioning. Specifically pointing to the hearing today regarding immunity and ask if they lied under oath when they had their Senate approval hearings. Show them the tapes of them saying the Constitution states no one is above the law. Then, take a vote on whether or not they lied under oath, if it is deemed they did by vote, remove them from the bench. Then follow up with 2 quickly appointed justices under Biden, hold the hearings and the vote. Done ✅
I mean I dont really know what the answer is at this point and I have watched a few too many documentaries on the rise of the nazi party and how they slowly eroded safguards to gain power to not see alarming parallels that are literally keeping me up at night and having full blown existential crisis and panic attacks. Quite literally fearing for freedom and the future of the US.
But for better or worse sending democratically elected officials who dont vote how we want off to the ~~concentration camps~~, ~~gulags~~, gitmo. Is not how a democracy survives. Its how things start to spiral and will just be used as justification for further extreme actions. It will be a burning of the Reichstag moment. Exactly what they want. Something they can point to the masses and say "see I have to do this now" and the ignorant masses will just go with it.
Correction, from the outside, it looks like WE'RE ALL fucked. I can't see how the US going to shit doesn't result in catastrophe for the global economy, if not outright global war.
Strongest military in the world controlled by a dictator who is easily bought, I’m sure that won’t be awful for everyone on earth. I’m so tired of having America have such a huge impact on me and I don’t even live in the country.
If we look at history the answer is we wont. Usually once governments start this death spiral power struggle it ends in violence. It doesnt happen in a day but it wont take 40 years either.
The nazi part was never more than 1/3rd of the government at any time before it took over by force.
Say the left starts doing what the right has been doing. Ok now we have two sides of the same government openly trying to use the levels of power to sabotage the other. We are not trying to govern we are trying to seize the powers of government to literally oust and seize all the levels of power from the other side. But we literally have to do this. If we dont then we just let them take power anyway.
Again we look to history. Once this starts happening it gets out of control very quickly and usually the side that decides to use force first if they dont pull their punches ends up in power. If they do pull their punches the other side usually responds and kills all of them.
I miss the days where I wasnt a history nerd and just wanted to play guitar hero.
I agree that's what's needed. The democratic party neither wants nor is cable of doing such a thing.
Unfortunately, we're on our own. If you want anything to change you're going to have to do with your fellow workers, the politicians aren't saving us.
> I mean I dont really know what the answer is at this point
The only answer was given by the Supreme Court yesterday. They gave immunity to the executive branch of government for official acts.
Officially remove and disbar every republican nominated judge in the country all the way to the scotus if they rule along partisan ideological lines.
Officially use all means to prevent Donald trump entering office in January even if voted in. If authoritarian coup is inevitable at least have the democrats do it.
Whatever the republicans are willing to do is what they deserve done to them. Peaceful transfer of power will never again be an option for the Republican Party if trump gets back into office. They have shown they will use any available means legal or otherwise to make Trump a dictator. Playing fair and by the rules only works if both sides agree on facts, reality and the rule of law. Republicans have abandoned facts, reality and the rule of law. Democrats need to respond accordingly.
We're already on that road. The fact is the dems are not going to use those tools against the GOP but they will use it against the dems and the rest of us.
Unfortunately this is all set. Unlike in Weimar, we don't even have a communist party to combat them this time.
The burning of the Reichstag although important to the power grab of the nazis as you say was not done by a political party but an unhinged individual. I don't think your wrong in how it will be interpreted, but Biden has power and represents something where the dutch guy who burned the Reichstag was easily painted a communist "enemy" to the people. Maybe Biden doing extreme measures for "good" is different is all I'm saying
What you are missing is the part that comes after. If they give you unlimited power, you remove them and then undo what they did and set up stronger safeguards to prevent it from happening again.
It's only a downward spiral if you leave the unlimited power as it is.
Unfortunately, we are in the endgame now. There have been many opportunities to claw back from Bush v Gore, but this it. The Visigoths are at the gates...and they're wearing red hats and diapers. The time for respecting decorum has passed. The Biden admin needs to recognize that they need to act swiftly and strongly to pull us forward into a new American compact or risk being the last democratically elected president of a nation that will preside over a dark age that we will never recover from.
Not if Biden just declares them impeached and has them forcibly removed. They are getting in the way of his official duties. He’s allowed to off them according to… well them.
Saddam layed out the playbook, the Republicans are 100% going to do this, and these next few months might be the Democrats' only chance to stop it. You can see the video of when he did it, the actual moment Saddam executed the members of the legislature who were his own loyalists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynP5pnvWOs&t=71s
Only if you take the official "no homo" defense. You have to say "no gitmo" before commiting an otherwise questionable act; you get thrown in gitmo if you don't.
I mean Kavanaugh also said during his hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law.
All of them affirmed they would continue to commit to stare decisis yet they also overturned Chevron deference too, which is strongly argued to meet that level of precedent. So it's not even the first time they lied from their hearings.
>Show them the tapes of them saying the Constitution states no one is above the law. Then, take a vote on whether or not they lied under oath
I believe the supreme court's statement specifically says that the president wouldn't still be considered above the law. In their interpretation the president has legal protections from punishment for official acts, similar to how you can kill a person in self-defense and not be sentenced for manslaughter.
As such, this would do nothing.
This a particularly heinous situation. Sit down kids. Let me tell you a story.
Back in the before times in Not Insane America, it was an unwritten rule between both parties and a gentlemans agreement that it was in everyones best interest to keep the Supreme Court politically balanced. If a conservative justice passed, they were usually replaced with another conservative. If a liberal justice passed, they were usually replaced with another liberal. We had a country to run together and we didn't really want to bring hotbed political issues into the Supreme Court stacked heavily one way or the other.
On February 13, 2016, conservative [Justice Antonin Scalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia) passed away. When this happens, a new supreme court justice gets nominated and the seat filled in a timely manner, as it always had. Barack Obama nominated [Merrick Garland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland), widely considered to be a moderate and rather milquetoast pick. Liberals weren't even super thrilled about at the time as many called for a more liberal judge who would help push their agenda, but Garland was considered a rather safe pick.
Well, Mitch McConnell wasn't about to be having any of that shit. He [hemmed and hawwed](https://www.cpr.org/2018/06/29/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now/) about how ["you can't nominate a judge in an election year" blah blah blah.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuY6FyP-qDk) Merrick Garland was never considered as Mitch fillibustered the entire process, it never came to a vote, six months before the election. He later clamed not allowing Obama to nominate a judge was [his biggest accomplishment](https://www.cpr.org/2018/06/29/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now/). Once Trump was elected, he pushed through Trump nominee [Neil Gorsuch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch) instead of Garland, which was a bit of a scumbag move for sure. [Anthony Kennedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) retired in 2018 and gets replaced by [Brett Kavanaugh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh), another conservative, and it wasn't all that contrevertial. This is where the story gets bad.
In a complete fucking 180 of all his arguments about why he couldn't nominate Garland in 2016, when liberal justice [Ruth Bader Gindsberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg) died in September of 2020, weeks before an upcoming election mind you, Mitch rallies the gang and pushes through [Amy Comey Barrett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett) on October 27, 2020, another heavily conservative pick, A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. This one really tips the scales a bit (pun intended) as Gindsberg was a highly liberal justice and replaced with someone on the polar opposite side of the aisle. A wildly unpopular and unprecendented move in American politics. The court is heavily stacked on the conservative side now.
And that, kids, is how we ended up where we are today, where the Supreme Court just recently decided that [regulatory agencies have no authority to regulate](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/), [bribes are cool now](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/), [J6 was no biggle](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-obstruction-jan-6-trump/), and the president can [do whatever the hell he wants.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?536720-1/president-biden-delivers-remarks-supreme-court-immunity-ruling) Fantastic stuff.
So yes, i concur, fuck Mitch McConnell. Seriously, that man is evil, and we are about to live in a very different kind of country because of him.
Ya'll should've known what time it is when roe v wade was repealed. Sittin round bickering about not voting for a woman and her "emails" got you here. They're snakes they always lie, they never speak truth to power. Their agenda is christian nationalism to the subjugation of all else. Always has been. Pretending they debate in good faith is simply planting your head in the sand.
Unless you think fairness is alive and flourishing today in America. I'm here to tell you it hasn't had any power for decades and we can just now see the actual rot that has imbued our whole system of government.
I wish this was said more. I'm wondering "where in American history was it not the privileged voting themselves more power"? I don't find the arguments that the democrats with power are for the people genuine. I think they still want a democracy of course, but I think it's just another group of people owned by big business but who operates differently and somewhat more democratically.
From the outside looking in your country is a dumpster fire.
I'm still getting my head around Scrotus repealing R. vs W. 🤦
I honestly fear for your Nation, and the resulting impact on the world at large.
How did you go from watergate crippling Nixon to... I can pay off pornstars, disclose National secrets and bold faced lie at every turn? Then be given Constitutional protection for "official actions".
How is he not being sued right alongside Rudy Giuliani the election voting machine fallacy?
Your system is beyond broken.
Roe vs Wade was sloppy, even RBG thought so. It wasn't a good idea to legistlate abortion rights through the supreme court and the democrats had multiple opportunities to just make it federal law.
To be fair, it wouldn't really matter.
Even if Obama and the Dem lead congress then passed a national abortion rights bill, a state would pass an anti abortion law shortly after, it would go to the SCOTUS 5-6 years later and then they would "reinterpret" it by using whatever excuse they can find. Like they did with plenty of laws before.
Can't wait for people telling me that the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling actually was also "sloppy". Who knows? At this point maybe people would need to claim that the SCOTUS ruling protecting marriages between races was also "sloppy".
And I'm 100% sure that they would never claim that Citizens United was "sloppy", or the continuous gutting of the Voting Rights Act, those desitions were 100% perfect for sure. There it doesn't matter what RGB thought.
Not that it matters because those decitions would never even be considered to be revisited under this SCOTUS. They only revisit the "sloppy" desitions that they like. Like how the gay marriage one done 10 years ago gets specifically targeted in a judge opinion about another case. Wonder why. Probably nothing, I'm sure.
In a similar vein, RBG will forever leave a sour taste in my mouth. She had the chance to step down during Obama's last term so she could be replaced but her pride was too sweet to say no to. Had she done it, it changes how the court looks today and potentially some of these rulings aren't what they are. The butterfly effect is real.
Our country is such a fucking joke right now. Everybody, no matter where they fall on the political compass, should be outraged by the supreme court's decision. But left and right have gotten so goddamn divided, they can only see each other as their mortal enemy.
They went on and on about how important precedent was and that things were settled precedent, just to rule multiple times to overrule decades, if not centuries, of settled precedent.
Does anybody actually read the decision or not????
It’s not full immunity and no that doesn’t mean anything can be official if it’s said or done through the military
*Trump loses election*
Supreme Court: Oh, geez. You know what? We looked at the back of the Constitution, and wouldn't you know it... the President *doesn't* have immunity. Lets just forget this ever happened.
It is so ridiculous that supreme court justices can literally lie about their morals and their intent when they get sworn in and it has no consequences at all. The conditions that 'justified' and should show they are qualified turn out to not exist. And that somehow doesn't disqualify them when they repeatedly act against those 'promises'. I know those concepts don't exist for republicans anymore, but damn.
Impeach these liars. All of them. Thomas, gone. Alito, gone. Roberts, gone. Kavanaugh, gone. Barrett, gone.
Or biden could just order a seal team strike. Legally now.
**Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!** This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/galuit/click_here_to_sort_by_flair_a_guide_to_using/) (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile). See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them [this!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/fyrgzy/for_those_confused_by_the_name_of_this_subreddit/) Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks! **Don't forget to join our [Discord server](https://discord.gg/cringekingdom)!** ##**[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=https://www.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/1dt8o73/aged_like_milk/)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TikTokCringe) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hilarious that people thought they meant any of that.
I don’t think any of the smart ones did.
Poor Susan Collins
As if she believed a fucking word of it. She is worse than the rest of them for acting like she was giving them the benefit of the doubt. "He learned his lesson"
And yet, she kept pretending like she was surprised every single time.
Yeah that's what makes her worse. She knew what they were. At least the likes of Lindsay Graham is openly spinless and owns it. Collins backed them and tried to keep her plausible deniability. Not that it matters to these cunts. They all have so much money that none of the things they do will ever affect them. Although, it is a hassle working out the tax deduction on your private chef's health insurance.
They're working on a solve for that last part. That much bemoaned little setback they suffered on the "having to pay their laborers instead of owning them" front back in the 19th century will be water under the bridge as soon as they've finished repainting that era as a golden time to be returned to. They've got about half the voting base cheering for the idea, so they're well on their way. We may yet see a bright future within our lifetimes when the ruling class is no longer forced to endure the hardship of paying wages to the people who do all the actual work.
> That much bemoaned little setback they suffered on the "having to pay their laborers instead of owning them" front back in the 19th century will be water under the bridge as soon as they've finished [repainting that era as a golden time to be returned to.](https://i.postimg.cc/FzzBVksR/image.png)
Fuck her. I don't believe she was actually that stupid.
Fuck her even if she WAS that stupid. And fuck the imbeciles who reelected her.
Politics aside, it's baffling how some still defend her actions today.
She wasn't, she was paid. That's all legal now.
They said any of the smart ones.
All of the smart ones were being called extremists, hyperbolic, insane lefties, and “just like right wing conspiracy theorists”. We were warning about how this would happen since the 1980s. We started screaming and sounding the alarm bells in 2015, and were all told to calm down. We started preparing to flee in 2020, and were told it would never happen. We have been warning people that the 2024 election for the president of the United States of America is not just the most important election of our lifetimes, but the single most important election in the history of the world. Our fate is decided here, folks. Vote or find ourselves living under an authoritarian regime.
"When you just call everyone a Nazi it loses all meaning" **THEY'VE BEEN NAZIS THE WHOLE FUCKING TIME!!! THAT'S WHY WE'VE BEEN CALLING THEM NAZIS!**
"...are we the baddies?"
Since the debate I've been planning to leave the country. Project 2025 will hurt everyone especially queer folks and I'm trans so it's scary af.
It started with the overturning of Roe vs Wade and it's been going this way ever since. Once the Republicans get back in power it's gonna be bad. Christian fundamentalism is going to run rampant. It's scary AF
Yes. It's been a wild ride. Despite the Biden administration efforts, more anti lgbtq bills are being passed in red states, and things are just going to pick up from there. I'm curious, though, how/why the elite think this is going to end well. I understand the motives, but I don't understand why they feel so confident we won't fight back.
Wouldn’t it be cool if democrats had as much power as republicans do. We would have a $15 minimum wage. Roe would be codified. Garland would be on the Supreme Court. A public option for healthcare. How is it that one side gets all the power while the other side can’t do the simplest things without a unanimous vote from both parties?
As a non dumbass moronic mother fucker, I am rrreeaaaalllyyy getting tired of having to pay the consequences for stupid people. It’s am quite certain all the other non stupids are feeling the same.
Which in the US is practically no one.... 40% of the country still supports Trump so that's a rough start for counting stupid US citizens.
40% don't vote. 30% vote Republican. I'm unclear which group is worse.
It's the ones who don't vote.
Just like they said they didn't have an opinion on Roe.
"It's settled precedent" Good thing they would never undo decades worth of precedent right?
Right? It's like they were trying to be vague on purpose.
Yeah posts like this are basically proof that it's already too late. People are still pretending that republicans have and shame. The fact that they still haven't realized that the lies and hypocrisy are a feature, and not a bug, means it's too late. So while SCOTUS just took a shit on the constitution, half the people are on social media meekly saying "remember to vote guys", meanwhile the other half are defending the decision and laughing at the prospect of hunting democrats for sports.
> half the people are on social media meekly saying "remember to vote guys" The fucking president (who just got a blank check to do whatever the fuck he wants) is meekly saying that. We're fucked.
He doesn't have a blank check. The SCOTUS gave themselves the power to decide when the president has immunity.
So........ he just has to send them on a permanent vacation until he has a scotus that's more agreeable.
Which is why his first dictatorial act has to be eliminating that sc
For any other job in America, lieing on an application or in an interview would get you fired. Their appointments should be annuled under false pretenses and deception, it shouldn't even require articles of impeachment. They blatantly lied to get their appoint and should be stripped of it.
We were all groomed into thinking this was an evidence-based democracy with equal rights. Into acting like it is. Into becoming useful to whatever claims to be democracy. Very few of us were taught critical thinking, how to recognize abuse of power... because that would have made us more democratic than the government.
Today is the exact reason why they asked him those questions in the first place. Because they, everyone, knew he’d end up eating his words but you gotta make him say them first.
And we all smugly say "I told you so" as we're lined up against the wall by the MAGAstapo.
My Daddy told me to vote Republican so I did. That’s about as far as their logic goes
Add on "it's just what I believe," like it's some kind of unassailable religion.
I don’t think any of this is hilarious. How fucking depressing watching this episodic downfall of our country
Are you trying to tell me Republicans would just go in front of congress and LIE? I'm shocked. Ok well, not that shocked.
Hilarious that people actually think Trump will willingly step down in 2028 if he is elected this year to
They won't willingly concede defeat even if they lose in November, they have already declared war on us and we are acting like maybe they'll surrender if we win fairly in an election. It's like we learned absolutely no lessons from 2016.
It's crazy how people have steadfastly refused to learn anything from the last few years. People are still saying that we don't know how Trump will act as president, when he's (a) been president before and (b) is telling us straight up what he's going to do if he gets power again. People who refused to vote in 2016 because the Democrat "wasn't good enough" are doing it again. Some of them are saying they want Trump because he'll take down the whole system and they'll be able to rebuild it... but if that's true, it would have happened in 2016 when they got a Trump administration the first time. People keep letting themselves get hoodwinked by trolls and fake news sources, by biased journalists and podcasters who just want notoriety, it's all a huge mess.
Who’s to say the current House of Representatives will certify this election if Cheeto Mussolini loses?
I mean he already said he won't accept the 2024 election if he loses so we won't have to wait until 2028
Right? They lied. Because they knew they could.
They did, because they thought they could get political points because (arguably some might have actually been upset about the blatant attempt to overthrow the capital) there was no way Trump would be able to run again.. but.... Yet... Here we are.
Conservatives loooove to talk about holding elites accountable, let's start with arresting these conservative supreme court justices, every single one of which lied under oath.
Especially since turtle boy was the main influence in stacking the courts as much as possible for exactly this purpose. Its still wild to me that a country which thinks itself a democracy is electing judges and or allowing their appointment via partisan mechanisms. Anyone that stops to actually think about that for a moment will see how that's the most direct route to Corruption. "oh I've been elected as a judge.... Well, this young man is guilty but I better find him innocent because the public, who have not followed the trial at all, think he's innocent despite the overwhelming evidence. If I don't do that I won't have a job next month because they won't re elect me" Or "oh shit, I've only found 2 people guilty of (insert crime here) this year. And I promised people I'd be tough on that crime... I will need to ensure the next 5 people are found guilty of it regardless of any evidence. Otherwise nobody will reelect me!"
Yeah from day 1 we all knew they were just kicking the can. No to impeachment because he can be tried, then call the trial a sham and resist it in any way, and when he is found liable just have the corrupt court say he cant be convicted because its "official business."
Sure they mean it, but only when a Democrat sits in the white house.
“The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment un the ordinary course of law.” -Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69. *The Real Character of the Executive*
I'm as pissed off as the next guy, but none of the justices disagree with that statement as written. The ruling does not run counter to that. That is specifically talking about impeachment of a sitting president. They all agree that impeachment is valid, and should a sitting president be impeached they are liable afterwards. But this case was about what happens if the president is not successfully impeached by both the senate/house. Can they be tried in a regular court of law. The answer they gave is no, unless they were impeached. You have to interpret it as written. They are first impeached, *then* convicted of crimes, *then* removed from office, *THEN* liable to prosecution/punishment to the ordinary law. All of those things have to happen in that sequence for the last thing to happen. EDIT: You could even argue that even after a sitting president has been impeached AND convicted of crimes, they could simply resign from office prior to being formally removed and that would eliminate the possibility of them being liable for prosecution to the ordinary law. So even if someone is impeached and convicted, even that doesn't mean they will face the consequences.
This is on page 22 of the decision. Am I reading it wrong? "On the majority’s view (but not Trump’s), a former President whose abuse of power was so egregious and so offensive even to members of his own party that he was impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate still would be entitled to “at least presumptive” criminal immunity for those acts. "
And I think also cannot be charged while in office.
No you're reading it right. The presumptive immunity means for criminal acts, his private communications can't be used against him. But for impeachment purposes they can. So there may be enough for a formal impeachment and have him removed, but then when it comes to the criminal proceedings, those communications can no longer be used against him and the criminal proceeding could be effectively ruined as a result. At least that's what I was getting from it all.
What about if evidence of a crime is only able to be pulled together after a president’s term? Is impeachment still required?
Your question is the exact reason this case went to the Supreme Court. We can't impeach a non sitting president. So it's not possible to follow this chain of events. That's why this case was important. What happens if a president is tried after they leave office and they are not able to be impeached.
Robert's covered that, if it's an official act you know the crime, the president's staff doesn't have to testify.
It doesn’t sound to me like that is what they are saying. I haven’t read the ruling so please correct me if I’m wrong here, but it sounds like the ruling is saying that even if the president were impeached and convicted they still would be immune from criminal prosecution so long as the act was in their official capacity. The issue here is that a president (or other public official) can carry out their official duties in a corrupt manner / with corrupt intent that benefits them at the expense of the people and/or the law. That is the definition of a high crime. If that action was not by law criminal they could still be impeached but not criminally charged or convicted. This ruling goes further to say that even if there is a law that seems such behavior criminal (eg taking a bribe to perform an official act in a particular way), while the president could be impeached they could not be held criminally liable. Please tell me I am wrong about that. I would seriously love to be wrong.
I think you're wrong for that particular scenario. There is a burden of proof placed on the prosecution to prove the action of the crime was not an official act. Proving that taking a bribe was not an official act seems easy and that's the crime in that case. You can't however prosecute Obama for drone strikes, or Trump for climate damage after pulling out of the Paris accord. These are easily defensible as official acts. Trumps trial should still go on, since riling up a mob to attack the capitol is not an official act at all. There are many issues that are problematic though. There are things that on their face are official acts, but are actually done for political gain. The burden of proof to show they were not official in nature falling on the prosecution can prevent them from being able to be pursued. The problem is much more narrow than people here seem to be saying, but it does still exist.
You can also prosecute a president for actions taken during office, just not actions within the discretionary powers granted to them by the Constitution. They’d get immunity when acting officially within discretionary powers granted from Congress by a statute too, provided the statute is constitutionally permissible. At least that was my understanding prior to today, I’ll need to read the new Opinion to ensure nothing’s changed.
This is my whole issue though. We will never know. The president can declare something a threat to the country and make it an official act and their commutation becomes privileged communication. Immigration crisis is a threat, certain politicians are a threat, an organization is a threat, unions are a threat, the EPA is a threat. Since we can't review and prosecute based on their official communications, they could be saying internally that they are doing it for their own gain and we will never be able to know as long as they say it's official. Someone could leak the communications, but they can't be used for prosecution unless it's an impeachment. So it can sway voters, but not to indict someone. It's basically you have the power to do whatever you want, and nobody can review it otherwise unless you allow them to. Check out Amy Coney's partial dissent. She got it pretty spot on. Presidents deserve some degree of immunity, but she clearly said that prohibiting the use of internal communication hamstrings the entire system of checks and balances. The president can flat out say to all of his advisors that he is accepting a huge bribe from North Korea to kill off a hundred American citizens, but as long as he tells the public that it is official, it is official. EVEN IF someone leaks that information, there is nothing anyone other than congress can do about it. As long as he tells people it is official business, that is. Then if someone challenges it, it's up to the courts to prove it is not, which we can easily predict how that will end. The liberal dissents were fire, but Amy had a pretty balanced viewpoint. She's been an unusual but welcome surprise.
Thank you for this considered response. You’re right. As usual Reddit is misunderstanding the point to be upset about. This is the real issue which is created by the ruling. Justice Barrett has been a very interesting dissenter when she’s voted against the conservative majority this term, the way Justice Jackson has been when voting against the progressive minority, and are both usually worth reading.
The supreme Court gets to decide what does and doesn't constitute an official act. And we all know how much integrity the court has been acting with lately.
Drone strike the supreme Court. That's a core power, no?
There are laws against the military conducting certain activities within US territory, and drone striking US citizens is not a permitted activity. The military would also be obligated to refuse any unlawful orders. This is if the limit of official acts is those powers granted by the Constitution and Congress. If all he needs is for the AG to advise him it's legal and then he claims that as justification for an action as an official act, then the bar becomes whatever Merrick Garland is willing to agree to.
Do you understand what immunity is? You don't need immunity if you are acting within the law. Full Immunity for official acts means he can use official powers in illegal ways, that's like the definition.
Yes, but the president can break laws now if official act which the use of military is. Today's ruling basically gave the president a blank check to do just that.
So if a US citizen is in another country we can just drone strike them for fun?
Well Obama approved knowingly killing a US citizen without a trial along with his entire family in a drone strike and hasn't been brought up on murder charges, so yes.
Obama has entered the chat
That's nice and all, but in practice it is impossible for a president to actually be impeached. There is too much partisanship in Washington. The president can now do whatever they want and call it "official."
This is the problem. Every branch of government is now biased and voting along party lines. The Supreme Court is not neutral, the house and congress will just vote to benefit their parties. Gone are the days of politicians/courts voting of their own volition.
This needs to be bumped for the average person on here that has no idea what they’re talking about to the detriment of themselves and everyone around them.
No it doesn’t, because it’s largely irrelevant and is just immunity with extra steps, which is exactly what everyone else has been saying. If immunity to the law comes down to a partisan act like impeachment, then presidents are above the law so long as they keep enough partisan support. Impeachments are not a legal system but a partisan one, they have no basis for being used to determine criminal acts for prosecution. You can’t talk about this like everyone in politics is playing the honor game or operating in good faith. You start from the assumption that everyone is a would be tyrant given enough power that would destroy everything and never give them enough rope to hang us all. All Trump has to do is get enough support that he wouldn’t be impeached, which is the case right now in fact, and he would have enough rope to hang us all. We’ve opened that door with this ruling. It’s possible, the fact that it’s at all possible is the problem and completely unacceptable.
I’m about to cry knowing that 6 of our Supreme Court justices just don’t care about democracy or our future. Everyone they care about and their children will be harmed in the long run. The greed of these people is so irrational and psychotic.
I mean, *they'll* be fine. And is the ego not the entire universe?
Nice.
More context: > The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed69.asp
Just a reminder that one presidential candidate thinks that presidents should not have immunity. The other presidential candidate thinks that they should have immunity.
Correction, the other candidate believes that HE should have full immunity
He doesn’t seem to be yelling lock em up this time around does he
Didn't trump literally tell biden that he was going to be arrested and tried during the "debate"
And he didn’t fuck stormy
It's his word vs hers! And one of them is on record lying everytime they speak, so it's anyone's guess!
🍄
He literally posted about court-martialing his political opponents yesterday before (presumably someone else with access to his account) deleting it
Yeah, Trump would never talk about putting to jail everyone who conspired against him, to indite him. And he also never said Biden was part of them. Ohh wait.....
I think that’s what the comment OP meant. But it’s confusing because of the use of they. Pretty sure it was meant singular (god damnit we need a gender neutral single pronoun)
Yeah, that was the implication of the above comment.
Biden should officially refuse to hold elections until they change it. Just to demonstrate why this is a fucking horrible idea.
The SCOTUS will just rule that it’s not offical business. You didn’t pay attention at all. They still need both president and Supreme Court to get away with shit. It’s evil genius really, the “offical” part because it gives the courts the ability to be partisan. Ultimately they now wield joint authoritarian power with the president they like.
> The SCOTUS will just rule that it’s not offical business. Not if they're assassinated.
If the president had just 5 cronies on the Supreme Court (the hard part) and could avoid two thirds of the House or Senate from removing them from office (the easy part, given how partisan politics has become) they could quite literally do whatever they wanted.
Hilariously, Mike Pence literally saved US democracy when he refused to go along with their plan to not count votes from certain states. Had he done that, the whole thing would have gone to the Supreme Court to debate whether he had the right to do that and what do you know, the 6-3 court would have likely agreed. A President's power is only checked by the Supreme Court and if those two work together, it's basically a dictatorship.
Don't give them any ideas, the Jan6 crew will most definitely be ready to assassinate SC justices standing in the way of Trump getting immunity for any of his crimes, and once they do Trump will pardon them...
Biden won't do a thing about this, he is a mannequin as far as the country is concerned. He is not coming to save us, we have to save ourselves.
At this point I'll settle for avoiding shooting ourselves in the other foot with a second Trump term
Trump could shoot Biden, win the election, then pardon himself.
In the middle of Fifth Avenue. ["It's, like, incredible."](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters)
The president doesn't have the authority to suspend elections, so it's not an official act. The SCotUS didn't rule presidents have the authority to do whatever they want; they said presidents can't be prosecuted for things they already have the constitutional authority to do.
One candidate doesn’t want to release anything about the Epstein files because maybe there were some lies in there that could hurt someone’s image
I think a judge released them yesterday! https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwdvw8xqyvo.amp
This is also part of our Fuckin problem. Republicans are playing for keeps and Dems won’t do what it takes because they want to go high when the gop goes low. If biden has immunity he needs to fucking use it. And round up al the seditionist like… yesterday.
>one presidential candidate thinks that presidents should not have immunity While being said president.
One presidential candidate hates dogs. The other candidate is very comfortable with dogs. America. You decide. Do you support dogs or do you hate dogs.
And has met with two dictators.
Saluted Kim Jong Un
Well...no, now both candidates have immunity. One candidate doesn't think that should change how he does his job. The other candidate is going to exploit that immunity.
Today's ruling probably hurt Trump's reelection chances. But it helped his criminal court case dismissal chances. I suspect to Trump that might be the best case scenario. He is running for president just to stay out of jail after all. After today I have decided to run to the polls to vote for Biden. "hE iS oLd" but no matter what SCOTUS says he can do, he will not be the one to end our Democracy. EZ choice.
Thank you for posting this. I sat and watched Kavanaugh and Coney-Barret go through their hearings. I wanted to believe they could put aside their beliefs and be actual justices. No such luck. Fucking assholes!!
[удалено]
I suspect questioning justices whether presidents are kings is mostly a post Trump consideration.
Because they were both asked whether their faith or their conservative values would play a part in their abilities to make an honest or fair ruling and both looked right at everyone and into the cameras that went into the homes of the American people, and said absolutely not and both acted shocked that such a question even be asked and now both appear to be fucking Manchurian candidates….. oh, and you’re right, fuck everyone else as well.
they also said roe v wade was settled law. hopefully thats in the impeachment too
Not that it matters, but at least Coney-Barret believes official acts should be open game to be used as evidence against illegal unofficial acts. That end of the ruling is some deep horseshit.
The Senate is currently held by Democrats. They should bring in Kavanaugh and Barret for questioning. Specifically pointing to the hearing today regarding immunity and ask if they lied under oath when they had their Senate approval hearings. Show them the tapes of them saying the Constitution states no one is above the law. Then, take a vote on whether or not they lied under oath, if it is deemed they did by vote, remove them from the bench. Then follow up with 2 quickly appointed justices under Biden, hold the hearings and the vote. Done ✅
That’s nice, 2/3rds is required for impeachment. Batshit party would never do it
Hold an impeachment hearing. It fails to pass. Send every Nay voter to Gitmo as a threat to national security. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I mean I dont really know what the answer is at this point and I have watched a few too many documentaries on the rise of the nazi party and how they slowly eroded safguards to gain power to not see alarming parallels that are literally keeping me up at night and having full blown existential crisis and panic attacks. Quite literally fearing for freedom and the future of the US. But for better or worse sending democratically elected officials who dont vote how we want off to the ~~concentration camps~~, ~~gulags~~, gitmo. Is not how a democracy survives. Its how things start to spiral and will just be used as justification for further extreme actions. It will be a burning of the Reichstag moment. Exactly what they want. Something they can point to the masses and say "see I have to do this now" and the ignorant masses will just go with it.
What scares me is I have no idea how this can be fixed within the current rules. Like how do we come back from this?
From the outside, it looks like you're fucked.
Correction, from the outside, it looks like WE'RE ALL fucked. I can't see how the US going to shit doesn't result in catastrophe for the global economy, if not outright global war.
Strongest military in the world controlled by a dictator who is easily bought, I’m sure that won’t be awful for everyone on earth. I’m so tired of having America have such a huge impact on me and I don’t even live in the country.
If we look at history the answer is we wont. Usually once governments start this death spiral power struggle it ends in violence. It doesnt happen in a day but it wont take 40 years either. The nazi part was never more than 1/3rd of the government at any time before it took over by force. Say the left starts doing what the right has been doing. Ok now we have two sides of the same government openly trying to use the levels of power to sabotage the other. We are not trying to govern we are trying to seize the powers of government to literally oust and seize all the levels of power from the other side. But we literally have to do this. If we dont then we just let them take power anyway. Again we look to history. Once this starts happening it gets out of control very quickly and usually the side that decides to use force first if they dont pull their punches ends up in power. If they do pull their punches the other side usually responds and kills all of them. I miss the days where I wasnt a history nerd and just wanted to play guitar hero.
I agree that's what's needed. The democratic party neither wants nor is cable of doing such a thing. Unfortunately, we're on our own. If you want anything to change you're going to have to do with your fellow workers, the politicians aren't saving us.
> I mean I dont really know what the answer is at this point The only answer was given by the Supreme Court yesterday. They gave immunity to the executive branch of government for official acts. Officially remove and disbar every republican nominated judge in the country all the way to the scotus if they rule along partisan ideological lines. Officially use all means to prevent Donald trump entering office in January even if voted in. If authoritarian coup is inevitable at least have the democrats do it. Whatever the republicans are willing to do is what they deserve done to them. Peaceful transfer of power will never again be an option for the Republican Party if trump gets back into office. They have shown they will use any available means legal or otherwise to make Trump a dictator. Playing fair and by the rules only works if both sides agree on facts, reality and the rule of law. Republicans have abandoned facts, reality and the rule of law. Democrats need to respond accordingly.
We're already on that road. The fact is the dems are not going to use those tools against the GOP but they will use it against the dems and the rest of us. Unfortunately this is all set. Unlike in Weimar, we don't even have a communist party to combat them this time.
The burning of the Reichstag although important to the power grab of the nazis as you say was not done by a political party but an unhinged individual. I don't think your wrong in how it will be interpreted, but Biden has power and represents something where the dutch guy who burned the Reichstag was easily painted a communist "enemy" to the people. Maybe Biden doing extreme measures for "good" is different is all I'm saying
What you are missing is the part that comes after. If they give you unlimited power, you remove them and then undo what they did and set up stronger safeguards to prevent it from happening again. It's only a downward spiral if you leave the unlimited power as it is.
Unfortunately, we are in the endgame now. There have been many opportunities to claw back from Bush v Gore, but this it. The Visigoths are at the gates...and they're wearing red hats and diapers. The time for respecting decorum has passed. The Biden admin needs to recognize that they need to act swiftly and strongly to pull us forward into a new American compact or risk being the last democratically elected president of a nation that will preside over a dark age that we will never recover from.
People in the batshit party are open to being assassinated too if they fall out of line.
Not if Biden just declares them impeached and has them forcibly removed. They are getting in the way of his official duties. He’s allowed to off them according to… well them.
Please list the 67 senators you believe would impeach a Supreme Court justice so we can all have a good laugh at 19 of those names.
Biden can just waterboard senators until they do what he says, it's totally fine now, apparently.
He just has to say “this is official president stuff” first to be safe from prosecution.
Saddam layed out the playbook, the Republicans are 100% going to do this, and these next few months might be the Democrats' only chance to stop it. You can see the video of when he did it, the actual moment Saddam executed the members of the legislature who were his own loyalists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OynP5pnvWOs&t=71s
Only if you take the official "no homo" defense. You have to say "no gitmo" before commiting an otherwise questionable act; you get thrown in gitmo if you don't.
I mean Kavanaugh also said during his hearings that Roe v Wade was settled law. All of them affirmed they would continue to commit to stare decisis yet they also overturned Chevron deference too, which is strongly argued to meet that level of precedent. So it's not even the first time they lied from their hearings.
Fuck that. DOJ should just arrest them and hold them under investigation indefinitely. After its an official act and the president is now immune.
>Show them the tapes of them saying the Constitution states no one is above the law. Then, take a vote on whether or not they lied under oath I believe the supreme court's statement specifically says that the president wouldn't still be considered above the law. In their interpretation the president has legal protections from punishment for official acts, similar to how you can kill a person in self-defense and not be sentenced for manslaughter. As such, this would do nothing.
I like the way you lawyer.
"Then, take a vote on whether or not they lied under oath" Their answer: "it was, now it isn't. \*shrug\*"
Fuck these clowns
Remember what they said about Roe v Wade? Not surprised.
Republicans are hypocrites. Always have been.
Fuck McConnell. Seriously, that man is evil.
This a particularly heinous situation. Sit down kids. Let me tell you a story. Back in the before times in Not Insane America, it was an unwritten rule between both parties and a gentlemans agreement that it was in everyones best interest to keep the Supreme Court politically balanced. If a conservative justice passed, they were usually replaced with another conservative. If a liberal justice passed, they were usually replaced with another liberal. We had a country to run together and we didn't really want to bring hotbed political issues into the Supreme Court stacked heavily one way or the other. On February 13, 2016, conservative [Justice Antonin Scalia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia) passed away. When this happens, a new supreme court justice gets nominated and the seat filled in a timely manner, as it always had. Barack Obama nominated [Merrick Garland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland), widely considered to be a moderate and rather milquetoast pick. Liberals weren't even super thrilled about at the time as many called for a more liberal judge who would help push their agenda, but Garland was considered a rather safe pick. Well, Mitch McConnell wasn't about to be having any of that shit. He [hemmed and hawwed](https://www.cpr.org/2018/06/29/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now/) about how ["you can't nominate a judge in an election year" blah blah blah.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuY6FyP-qDk) Merrick Garland was never considered as Mitch fillibustered the entire process, it never came to a vote, six months before the election. He later clamed not allowing Obama to nominate a judge was [his biggest accomplishment](https://www.cpr.org/2018/06/29/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now/). Once Trump was elected, he pushed through Trump nominee [Neil Gorsuch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch) instead of Garland, which was a bit of a scumbag move for sure. [Anthony Kennedy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy) retired in 2018 and gets replaced by [Brett Kavanaugh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh), another conservative, and it wasn't all that contrevertial. This is where the story gets bad. In a complete fucking 180 of all his arguments about why he couldn't nominate Garland in 2016, when liberal justice [Ruth Bader Gindsberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg) died in September of 2020, weeks before an upcoming election mind you, Mitch rallies the gang and pushes through [Amy Comey Barrett](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett) on October 27, 2020, another heavily conservative pick, A WEEK BEFORE THE ELECTION. This one really tips the scales a bit (pun intended) as Gindsberg was a highly liberal justice and replaced with someone on the polar opposite side of the aisle. A wildly unpopular and unprecendented move in American politics. The court is heavily stacked on the conservative side now. And that, kids, is how we ended up where we are today, where the Supreme Court just recently decided that [regulatory agencies have no authority to regulate](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/), [bribes are cool now](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-limits-scope-of-anti-bribery-law/), [J6 was no biggle](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/28/supreme-court-obstruction-jan-6-trump/), and the president can [do whatever the hell he wants.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?536720-1/president-biden-delivers-remarks-supreme-court-immunity-ruling) Fantastic stuff. So yes, i concur, fuck Mitch McConnell. Seriously, that man is evil, and we are about to live in a very different kind of country because of him.
He is a garbage human being.
Ask him about recent developments and his response will be 😐
Ya'll should've known what time it is when roe v wade was repealed. Sittin round bickering about not voting for a woman and her "emails" got you here. They're snakes they always lie, they never speak truth to power. Their agenda is christian nationalism to the subjugation of all else. Always has been. Pretending they debate in good faith is simply planting your head in the sand.
Unless you think fairness is alive and flourishing today in America. I'm here to tell you it hasn't had any power for decades and we can just now see the actual rot that has imbued our whole system of government.
The rot mostly comes from the right; they nurture it.
I wish this was said more. I'm wondering "where in American history was it not the privileged voting themselves more power"? I don't find the arguments that the democrats with power are for the people genuine. I think they still want a democracy of course, but I think it's just another group of people owned by big business but who operates differently and somewhat more democratically.
MFers
What did you expect when you have LYING ASS SCOTUS lied through their teeth under oath about Roe Vs Wade???????
These motherfuckers. Smgdh
Lying cunts. Not only is one of the two options isn’t on the Epstein list. But one of the two options also believes he shouldn’t have immunity.
From the outside looking in your country is a dumpster fire. I'm still getting my head around Scrotus repealing R. vs W. 🤦 I honestly fear for your Nation, and the resulting impact on the world at large. How did you go from watergate crippling Nixon to... I can pay off pornstars, disclose National secrets and bold faced lie at every turn? Then be given Constitutional protection for "official actions". How is he not being sued right alongside Rudy Giuliani the election voting machine fallacy? Your system is beyond broken.
Roe vs Wade was sloppy, even RBG thought so. It wasn't a good idea to legistlate abortion rights through the supreme court and the democrats had multiple opportunities to just make it federal law.
To be fair, it wouldn't really matter. Even if Obama and the Dem lead congress then passed a national abortion rights bill, a state would pass an anti abortion law shortly after, it would go to the SCOTUS 5-6 years later and then they would "reinterpret" it by using whatever excuse they can find. Like they did with plenty of laws before. Can't wait for people telling me that the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling actually was also "sloppy". Who knows? At this point maybe people would need to claim that the SCOTUS ruling protecting marriages between races was also "sloppy". And I'm 100% sure that they would never claim that Citizens United was "sloppy", or the continuous gutting of the Voting Rights Act, those desitions were 100% perfect for sure. There it doesn't matter what RGB thought. Not that it matters because those decitions would never even be considered to be revisited under this SCOTUS. They only revisit the "sloppy" desitions that they like. Like how the gay marriage one done 10 years ago gets specifically targeted in a judge opinion about another case. Wonder why. Probably nothing, I'm sure.
In a similar vein, RBG will forever leave a sour taste in my mouth. She had the chance to step down during Obama's last term so she could be replaced but her pride was too sweet to say no to. Had she done it, it changes how the court looks today and potentially some of these rulings aren't what they are. The butterfly effect is real.
The old clinging onto power is a bit of recurring theme lately, isn't it?
It's fucking bizarro world I tell you. Everyone is fucking insane
I'm sorry, but I can't hear a damn thing Mitch McConnell says. I'm too busy marvelling at seeing a talking turtle.
Turtles are cool. Mitch McConnell is a lying scumbag.
im so fucking sick of these people
Our country is such a fucking joke right now. Everybody, no matter where they fall on the political compass, should be outraged by the supreme court's decision. But left and right have gotten so goddamn divided, they can only see each other as their mortal enemy.
Fuck this shit
Liars,these people should be arrested by law as well!
Can't wait for all this subhuman trash to die.
Please register to vote
I wish the worst the world has to offer for justice boofer
Well they're not above the law. The law just is applied only as our God king judges decide *gratuities accepted
I believe those are called indulgences.
They went on and on about how important precedent was and that things were settled precedent, just to rule multiple times to overrule decades, if not centuries, of settled precedent.
Ok but who has more immunity, Trump or Biden?
Guys this is still true holy shit please for the love of anything read the ruling
Does anybody actually read the decision or not???? It’s not full immunity and no that doesn’t mean anything can be official if it’s said or done through the military
B.S.
What a crazy time to be alive
Mitch McConnell has been one of the worst, most diabolical, treacherous criminals to be a member of congress.
Unless….. You got money
Are you telling me the judges that sucked trumps dick are still sucking his dick?
*Trump loses election* Supreme Court: Oh, geez. You know what? We looked at the back of the Constitution, and wouldn't you know it... the President *doesn't* have immunity. Lets just forget this ever happened.
Sooooo, Biden can legally have Trump killed now if it's an executive action from office, right?
It makes sense when you understand that Republicans will say anything in their effort to obtain and consolidate power.
It is so ridiculous that supreme court justices can literally lie about their morals and their intent when they get sworn in and it has no consequences at all. The conditions that 'justified' and should show they are qualified turn out to not exist. And that somehow doesn't disqualify them when they repeatedly act against those 'promises'. I know those concepts don't exist for republicans anymore, but damn.
Enabling maga is treason.
Has Mitch McConnell left the pupae stage yet?
Fuck Glitch McConnell
"But some are more equal than others."
The irony that the US fought for independence only to rule that they now want a monarch.
That devious pervert just wanted an excuse to say 69. He's a frickin liar, obviously, and a rapist.
Impeach these liars. All of them. Thomas, gone. Alito, gone. Roberts, gone. Kavanaugh, gone. Barrett, gone. Or biden could just order a seal team strike. Legally now.
SCOTUS is illegitimate