Biden surrogates brushed off questions about reining in the court, while emphasizing the gravity of a second Trump term.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    65·
    5 months ago

    He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6… Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.

    Although I’ve seen far less civilized but more permanent suggestions.

    It’s not even a crime, or false accusation.

    And as an official act, no one can go after Biden for it.

    If Biden believes trump is the threat he says he is, then he needs to do that. But ideally he would have expanded the SC back in 2021 when we had the numbers.

    Like, we’re backed into this corner because Biden decided to walk into it…

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      32·
      5 months ago

      My understanding is many supporters of Biden don’t want a coup or fascism.

      If Biden engages in those acts wouldn’t that result in less votes and support? And also increase the chances republicans get away with a coup/facism?

      Also, my understanding is a supermajority is required in Congress to change the Supreme Court. Which we did not have in 2021. Am I wrong?

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        45·
        5 months ago

        If Biden engages in those acts wouldn’t that result in less votes and support? And also increase the chances republicans get away with a coup/facism?

        Republicans are gonna republican. But we’re literally fight fascism so…

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

        Also, my understanding is a supermajority is required in Congress to change the Supreme Court. Which we did not have in 2021. Am I wrong?

        Can be done with a simple majority, which we had till 2022. If Dems really fought and tossed out the filibuster, but they didn’t.

        Instead Biden created a bipartisan committee to investigate if the corrupt Republican SC should be allowed to stand as is. He gave them 6 months, and after 2 years (as soon as Dems.lost the House) they decided we should just let it go.

        At every step, Biden and party leadership refuse to fight.

        We can’t afford that. If trump is as dangerous as they say (he is) then we need to actually fight.

        Even if we lose, it motivates voters for the next election.

        But he could still, this very day, arrest them for treason and jail them indefinitely and no one can stop him due to the SC’s recent ruling.

        • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
          31·
          5 months ago

          From what I’ve read, impeaching a Supreme Court justice requires the same impeachment process as the president so 2/3rds. Not a simple majority.

          But even if it could be done with a simple majority, your statement depends on the vote of Manchin and Sinema.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            14·
            5 months ago

            He could throw them in prison extrajudicially for actions against the US government including treason for their support of 1/6… Hell, he can ship em to Gitmo even tho theyre US citizens.

            I didn’t say anything about impeachment…

            From 2020-2022 we could have added justices with a simple majority after throwing out the filibuster.

            We didn’t.

            We are running out of actions because we are running out of time. I wish Biden wouldn’t have wasted those two years with a bipartisan commission to find out if everything was fine…

            But he did.

            Due to the recent SC ruling, Biden faces no punishment for actions committed in office. So he can jail Clarence and everyone else who’s corrupt in jail and thus remove the conservative majority. Hell, legally he can have them executed for treason without trial, but I think Gitmo and no communication is more than enough.

            There’s lots of people in GITMO who have done far less

            If trump is the threat Biden says (he is) then we need to do whatever we can to prevent trump.

            Do you disagree that trump is an existential threat to American democracy and we may never recover if he becomes president.

            • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
              12·
              4 months ago

              For Biden to face no punishment for his actions a judge has to decide that the actions were official acts of a president. So what he can and can’t do are decided by a judge.

              Again, you’re strategy for adding justices depends on the vote of Sinema and Manchin. But you’re blaming Biden instead. That makes it seem like a bad faith argument.