No one even thought to ask about it in the debate.

ITT: people resistant to the idea that what the judicial branch is doing is seriously wrong.

  • BilliamBoberts@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Chuck Schumer introduced the ‘no kings act’ which, if passed into law, would:

    1. Reaffirm that president’s and vice president’s do not have immunity for actions that violate U.S. criminal law
    2. Remove the supreme court’s appellate jurisdiction for all actions challenging the constitutionality of this legislation (referring to the no kings act I believe)
    3. Establish additional jurisdiction and procedural guardrails. Allowing the United States to bring criminal action against a President or Vice President in any applicable district Court.

    I think this is a good stop gap and I will be emailing my senators and representative to support this bill

    • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      13 days ago

      They need the house and the senate for a start. Trump and Kamala are neck and neck and the stars are aligned for a GOP win. We are pushing uphill and everyone’s sitting on their laurels hoping it sorts itself out.

  • linearchaos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    13 days ago

    Oh no no we care. We are now absolutely scared to fucking death the Trump will make it back in.

    Before his first election we thought how bad could he be.

    Then he was pretty bad. And then the next time around we went, he could be this bad. But he lost and that was good.

    And now here we are again only the saying how bad can he be as a whole new context.

  • MsPenguinette@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    Jesus fucking Christ. That was only two months ago? Fuck you, Time, can you just be consistent for like even a second?

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    Harris specifically mentioned it in the debate. but you can’t talk about it when you have two minutes to answer anything. also what is there for them to debate about? he would have deny it’s what he wants, deny he would abuse it, and that’s that.

  • Banana_man@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    12 days ago

    Seems to me this is a common theme everywhere. Something big happens and incites a massive reaction, even offline and then it dies down as quickly as it sparked up. Politics are a show like everything else, serious issues like this one overshadowed by more trending events such as the debate.

    In the end, no one does anything effective and even if they do, it isn’t massive or lasting enough to pressure any politician for real and they get to do whatever they want.

  • Sarothazrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    The thing that really gives me anxiety is thta no one has been talking about reinstating Chevron deference…

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    I care. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve already entered fascism with that decision. We have no way of knowing that ONLY Donald Trump would abuse that power.

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    No one cares because no one really doubted that the immunity for official acts was going to be a thing.

    The sneaky part that is problematic was making official communication channels inadmissible even for non official acts. That part is what buried the jan 6th trial for Trump, because it relied on communications through official channels as evidence.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      Oh, good. I’m sure that we’ll never have another corrupt president, so there’s absolutely no need to worry!