852
Sam Alito Got Knighted… Just Like The Founding Fathers EXPLICITLY MADE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(abovethelaw.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
852 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3239 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No idea! I have wondered that myself. In fact why doesn't he do it now, he's the ultimate lame duck prez, there'd be no consequences for him so he absolutely should a few days after the election -- if he truly could (I don't know enough about the details about how he could so do).
If your question is not just rhetorical, I totally agree, 100%.
In fact I wish he'd declare he's dissolving SCOTUS completely, plus a few levels of courts below and appointing non-partisan judges across the board to clean house and reset the decades of theocratic-proto-fascists that appear to have infiltrated the system at all levels. He could, after all, do anything right? The SCOTUS ruled this summer that Presidents have 'absolute immunity', so why not? It would be the ultimate F*ck You to their corruption and would be a historically beautiful way to bow out.
EDIT: Oh look, I'm not the first to think of it
I am so sick of seeing this argument. SCOTUS didn’t give him any more actual powers, they shielded him from prosecution. He can’t just unilaterally declare he’s dissolving a whole branch of government, because he never had that power in the first place. What do you expect him to do to actually back that up? March the army in?
I mean, he could, but wouldn't he need Congress to confirm his appointments? They'd just do what they did while Obama was in office and block any motion for a vote, especially since the Democratic party doesn't hold a filibuster-proof, 60-member Senate majority. Although, Obama had that and still blew it, the price of believing one can still engage in good faith negotiations with bad faith actors, I'm afraid.
They're already declaring their intentions to not negotiate with Harris in good faith, should she win the election, and to block all Presidential appointments. Hopefully she will go ahead and do it anyway. SCOTUS does get the final say in what does and does not constitute an "Official Act", but they don't have any enforcement mechanism. All they can do is send a strongly-worded letter, asking her to stop, but they can't force her to stop.
Just a simple majority in the Senate. And since he has absolute immunity, he can just order the executions of a sufficient number of Republican senators to ensure his appointments make it through confirmation.