this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
326 points (97.9% liked)

collapse of the old society

973 readers
11 users here now

to discuss news and stuff of the old world dying

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 144 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Honestly, I think that impeaching all 6 justices is the right thing to do.

Just explain it to people in congress. You WILL lose your power when the whip comes down. You MAY be imprisoned or killed if you don’t get in line, and even if not, any power you had in congress will be stripped and discarded. There is no safety, even for the most extreme of the true believers. This is your chance. If you don’t try to stop it, then I think it’s better odds than 50/50 than within a couple of years you’ll be saying you’d do ANYTHING to be able to go back to today and do it, and have your old life just hanging out in Washington and doing legalized insider trading and collecting ~~bri~~campaign contributions and not having to worry about what will happen to you or your family or your home, again.

I don’t know if the people will believe if it is explained to them. Groupthink and complacency are powerful things. But that is absolutely what’s at stake.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 70 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why bother with impeachment? Biden should just exploit their most recent verdict and round them up as part of an emergency official act.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 28 points 4 months ago (8 children)

This is the fascism trap. It’s tempting to fight back “in kind” once the rules start going out the window, and obviously by the letter of their decision it would be perfectly legal for him to just assassinate them as an official act and then nominate all new justices. But this is a trap. The further we all abandon the unspoken rules that keep things on the rails, the worse it gets. You have to fight back on the tilted table without yourself breaking any rules you can avoid breaking.

It’s a shitty situation but that is the strategy, as far as I understand it.

(And I know, or I assume, that you weren’t serious - but still it applies, even to more minor things like solving the problem by nominating 10 new justices or things like that.)

[–] mos@lemmy.world 62 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Isn't this the same "taking the high road" strategy that has consistently put democrats at a disadvantage when dealing with a side that doesn't care about the rules? I bring this up because I'm trying to get an understanding for this framework of thinking. In my heart, I know it's probably the correct path, but I know it's not the best one when dealing with the current political game.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

So I am basing this on a book “How Democracies Die” that describes a series of case studies of nations that were threatened by a fascist movement, and those that succumbed, and those that defeated it, and what were the differences and tactics involved.

It’s fairly depressing, because a lot of times once it reaches a certain point there aren’t a lot of good options, but it is based on real outcomes and I think it’s instructive.

The Democrats’ “taking the high road” that they like to do is different. Assassinating the justices would be responding in kind. Growing the court would be a dangerous escalation. Making a crash priority out of impeaching them, like equal in priority with taking your fucking vacation for July 4th or passing a resolution honoring National Snails Day or whatever useless thing that are doing instead, would be a proper response (to me). Holding a hand-wringing press conference and then doing more or less nothing other than crossing fingers and hoping that this November doesn’t bring the end of the Republic - I.e. taking the high road, i.e. apparently what they’ve decided to do - seems like a pretty sure road to calamity. That, I’m 100% not advocating as the right course of action, although I can see how it might have sounded like I was.

[–] kurikai@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

You gotta screw the whole system up. But not like how the fascists would. Going to filibuster the SCOTUS? Fill it with 99 judges.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

But this is a trap. The further we all abandon the unspoken rules that keep things on the rails, the worse it gets.

The left: "we can't break decorum and unwritten rules, or the right will do it even worse!"

The right: does it even worse anyway.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

The democrats are not leftists

[–] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

America's dependence on unspoken rules and the assumption that people would abide by those rules is the weakest link in American democracy. It was just a matter of time until someone decided to exploit that...

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 4 months ago

Part of the point of the book was, every country is like that. You can't just write some stuff in a book and expect it to do anything. People will follow them, or not, or they will as the current Court is doing find absurd reasons to argue why they are following the rules when they are not. At the end of the day it's just a book.

Habits are strong, shared values are strong, codes and norms and laws and traditions are strong. But they're not invulnerable. Fire up people's loyalty and sense of justice and tell them that the leader is the law and that's now the most important thing, and watch all the laws in the world crumble and tear like wet tissues. It doesn't matter if it's just in people's heads or it's written in stone on every street corner. It doesn't make a difference.

[–] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 25 points 4 months ago

No, this isn’t The Facism Trap, this is not falling for the paradox of tolerance.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 7 points 4 months ago

It's getting worse either way it seems, frankly it's getting to the point that drastic action now could prevent worse harm in future.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

They don't have to be dead. He can just declare they're no longer the justices. If they want to argue that's not how it works, good.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Dont forget we got most of our rights by making plays that were "illegal". Every single right you enjoy today is because people risked it all to change it. Biden should do it. Why? Because good people are accustomed to making good choices, and it is much easier for a good person to make one intentionally morally bad choice, than it is for a bad person to make morally good choices as the leader of our country.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee -1 points 4 months ago
[–] joneskind@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Biden should use the 6 ~~infinity stones~~ Supreme Court judges to ~~destroy the infinity stones~~ fire the Supreme Court judges

[–] veroxii@aussie.zone 14 points 4 months ago

I just looked up the inaugural oath and the president promises to defend the Constitution from domestic enemies. So if the president as part of their duties consider the supreme court a thread to the constitution then it's his duty to fire them. And they already said he'd be immune.

Not sure what he's waiting for to be honest.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Biden needs to dissolve the Supreme Court and recreate it with more justices and term limits as an official act.

There is no federal documentation saying the President can't. And thusly we see Biden should remove them to show them what naked force feels like to receive.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Biden ain't gonna do shit.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 88 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The US now has nine unelected people who control the President.

What can go wrong?

[–] Darorad@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They control the president unless the president uses an official act to get rid of them

[–] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Checks and balances, baby! amiright, guys?

/s

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Checks and Drone Strikes

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

They've controlled who was president before, who's to say they won't do that again too.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 57 points 4 months ago

They've made a complete mockery of our entire country and all of its systems. I'm about to turn to extremism. Even my local action feels like its useless in the face of this shit.

[–] HotsauceHurricane@lemmy.one 50 points 4 months ago

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

[–] unionagainstdhmo@aussie.zone 32 points 4 months ago

If the supreme court is going to make political decisions and try to interpret the laws in such a way to support those decisions then they should be an elected body.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So they admit what happened and Trump's role in it?

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 11 points 4 months ago

"They're not confessing. They're bragging."

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 21 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Electors are appointed by the states and counted by Congress. Where does the president come in?

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

“You can’t do that.”

“Presidents orders. I am but his electoral hands doing his work.”

[–] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We all saw this coming, that everything Trump did as president would be argued as an official act.

[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Was it an official act when he stole classified documents and sold them to our enemies? What ever even happened with that? They raided his fucking house, and then we never heard anything about it again. There's too much corruption with this guy to keep track. That's why he should be held accountable for treason with the strictest possible sentence.

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago

I guess they can say that now, considering that corruption is now legal if your name ends with a Trump.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 months ago

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 4 months ago

It’s pretty cool how these shitheads flaunt their power without shame!

/s