‘There Are No Kings in America’: Biden Blasts Supreme Court, Issues Dire Warning After Immunity Ruling
dailyboulder.com
President Joe Biden delivered a scathing rebuke of the Supreme Court on Monday, condemning their ruling granting presidents absolute immunity from prosecution for official acts. In a somber address from the White House, Biden warned of dire consequences should former President Donald Trump secure a second term.

“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law even including the supreme court of the United States.”

Throughout his address, Biden underscored the gravity of the moment, emphasizing that the only barrier to the president’s authority now lies in the personal restraint of the officeholder. He warned vehemently against the prospect of Trump returning to power, painting a stark picture of the dangers such an outcome could pose.

    • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      5 months ago

      But is he wrong? From Nixon, to Reagan, to Newt GIngrich, to Mitch McConnell to Trump, the Democrats have been feckless and refused to halt this march to fascism. They are complicit by tacit acceptance. This need to adhere to some vague Status Quo (Capitalist Donor Class) is why we are in this situation. It’s time to wake up and realize the Marxists were right all along. You can’t compromise with Capitalism.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.eeEnglish
        1·
        5 months ago

        Can’t speak for previously, but recently, a good chunk of Democrats’ failures have been because of a select few members holding out, no?

              • graphikeye@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                4 months ago

                there’s always going to be different spoilers within the democratic party because they are created.

                This is a straight lie. It’s just feelings.

                A democrat representative from West Virginia represents a completely different electoral base than a democrat from California. So when the House is a slim d majority there are going to be spoilers. Labor reform (and others) has passed many times when Democrats had opportunities. Hassan has a political science degree and knows this. Unfortunately, he is captured by his audience and has to pander to them so he lives in conspiracy land. It’s all feelings and no substance.

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  4 months ago

                  Like party whips don’t exist. They’re supposed to offer concessions to get bills passed. Pork Barrels are a thing. Stop defending these people, the planet is burning.

                  “I’ve never been a liberal in any way,” said Manchin, adding that “all we need to do I guess for them to get theirs… is elect more liberals.”

                  Polling has shown the Build Back Better plan is popular nationwide–and both political commentators and progressive activists have warned that not passing the full package could negatively impact Democrats at the ballot box next year.

                  When a Majority of Americans support progressive policies such as higher minimum wage, free college, it’s not because of red states, it’s because the donor class doesn’t want those policies to pass.

                  • graphikeye@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    4 months ago

                    I’m also glad we can pivot away from what a joke Hassan is.

                    I think you’re reinforcing my original point: with just a slim majority a big party tent won’t accomplish much. These are just facts. I’m not defending the democrats – this is just reality.

                    On another note: I’m curious about this prevalent binary invocation that happens on this site. You accused me of defending these people. I’m not interested in defending anyone --just discussing the facts. Why is everyone on Lemmy.world so intent on ascribing a team/position to everyone so earnestly? What is being gained with this tactic?

      • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.caEnglish
        21·
        5 months ago

        Yes, he and you are obviously wrong. Even if everything you said was 100 percent true (lol) the people who failed to stop facism are obviously not the same as fascists themselves. Everything thinking person knows this , and Marx would too if he was alive.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          13·
          5 months ago

          the people who failed to stop facism are obviously not the same as fascists themselves.

          Superior Orders, or ignorance of what is happening, does not absolve one of responsibility.

          Since the 2020 election cycle began, “fascism” took on a plethora of new meanings, none of which actually accessed the ongoing material conditions surrounding the rise of fascism outside of the Republican Party. In fact, one could easily conclude that “fascists” and “republican” were interchangeable words if they paid close enough attention to the elections. But they are not. The confusion around fascism, weaponized by liberals to drive people to the voting polls, has disallowed any inspection of the primary role the Democratic Party (with its neoliberal, populist, and austerity police state policies) has played by sheltering and coddling this current iteration of fascism. source

          • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.caEnglish
            2·
            4 months ago

            Again, that is not the claim that was made. You can’t even stay on topic. I bet Marx could stay on topic .

            • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              4 months ago

              Marx abused alcohol, so not sure. The Republicans are capitalists. The Democrats are capitalists. To Marxists they are the same. Liberalism fails because it cannot address the contradictions inherent to capitalism, inequality and wealth accumulation. Capitalism requires inequality for wealth accumulation.

              Social democratic reforms can alleviate the inequality and distribute the wealth more equitably, but, because it does not replace capitalism itself, it always falters.

              So, although Democrats and Republicans differ on social policy, they both defer to capitalism. Capitalism rules both parties.

              • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.caEnglish
                1·
                4 months ago

                The Republicans are capitalists. The Democrats are capitalists. To Marxists they are the same.

                Meaningful, important distinctions can exist even when Marxists are unable to recognize them.

                Social democratic reforms can alleviate the inequality and distribute the wealth more equitably, but, because it does not replace capitalism itself, it always falters.

                Explain? Because systems ultimately fail , it’s no good? Longevity and risilience are worthwhile considerations when designing and economic system to govern a civilization, but uktimate fallibility does not invalidate them entirely. More to the point, what evidence is there that Marxists societies do/would last longer?

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  4 months ago

                  Marxists recognize the distinctions. That’s why many, myself included, will vote for Joe Biden, despite him being a capitalist. Others take a more hardline stance and refuse to perpetuate the capitalist system. There are many ways to hinder capitalism.

                  Social Democracies are better than laissez-fair capitalism. It’s just that capitalism, and capitalists tend to monopolize wealth and squeeze out social programs for more profit. Don’t get me wrong, I would love it if America accepted social democracy. And many would be just fine with that.

                  Capitalism is a tool to shape society. Marxism is a tool to shape society. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. Capitalism is great at growing an industrial economy and Marxism is better at serving the people. Capitalism has run its course, and we need a better vision for the world and it’s 8 billion people. The instability we see across the world is because capitalism serves profit over people.

                  There are many examples of Marxists societies flourishing, it depends on how you measure. China uses Marxists doctrine and is doing quite well, as is Vietnam. And though some may see them as capitalist infused, their governments adhere to Marxists principles. The capitalist drive for profit and wealth is pernicious, and it will be interesting to see how it influences the Marxists governments.

                  Capitalism’s end is inevitable. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. How it ends is up to us. Do we choose degrowth and sustainability, or militaristic fascist decay with war and death.