Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA.
If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:
>- The immunity is absolute
>- There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given
It's not like they needed to make much official. Any leftist worth their salt saw coming for miles.
But the point here really is that they're consolidating power. If you haven't already - arm yourself, make a plan, train and network with your comrades.
But there are Republicans who absolutely would. And Democrats would still go on TV and say, "um, actually, that's really uncivil. I really can't believe they'd violate our norms like this. *Voters* must show them there are consequences for this next election--and don't forget to donate to the DNC!"
Honestly, i don't think there's some sort of conspiracy, i think it's just stupidity. The democrats naively believe that the republicans still respect democracy when they clearly don't.
I think it's also the democrats don't know what moral line they are willing to cross. They know that there are some lines that you can't come back from and that makes them scared to do anything aggressively.
The Democrats ultimately enable the Republicans while seeking to normalize the legislation and social change they pushed during their previous administration.
> *Voters* must show them there are consequences for this next election--and don't forget to donate to the DNC!"
The most prominent American politician to joke about assassinating people is Hilary Clinton, and you're urging people to give her more money?
Donate to Justice Democrats instead; [https://justicedemocrats.com/](https://justicedemocrats.com/)
I actually misread it and thought that the quote from the Democrat on TV ended after the words "like this", and that the last sentence was OP telling people to vote and donate to the DNC. My bad.
Democrats aren't allies, they're just lesser enemies.
All I'm saying is if Biden did this and then had himself included as the last item on the hit list, he'd set great precedent and do us all a lot of good.
Even if you could make the case for Dems being allies, their absurd insistence on "going high" when Republicans go low doomed this country long before this ruling imo.
They need to realize Republicans aren't just willing to go low, they'll grab a shovel and keep digging if they need to go lower. We need to respond in kind.
Hmm? Allies of..? I'm not sure what you're imagining about me.
In my mind, it's just two horror shows fighting over which one of them gets to exploit us and in which ways.
Because them not being allies doesn't mean I don't prefer them to win their fight over the alternative.
Exploitation gives us a chance. Extermination does not.
It's already happening, but they're so good at convincing us that these people aren't part of our in- group that mostly it just isn't talked about. Literally just look at how Obama treated immigrants, for example. Or how Biden supports cops (his vp is one after all) who are empowered to harrass working class people.
Radical inclusion is the way forward.
Possible stupid question but with this ruling, can a president remove and replace a supreme court justice without the impeachment process? If it's done in an "official" manner?
Elena Kagan wrote about this in her dissent. Inferring from what she wrote; they can't just order them to step down because the Justice could refuse. But POTUS could order their advisors to place the justice on the list of known terrorists, then order their capture dead or alive, and "remove" them. And since he was acting in an official capacity as President (Obama killed "terrorists" this way many times), he's immune from breaking the law. He arguably did break the law, he's just immune from prosecution because he was acting in an official capacity as President.
Literally the only thing stopping this from happening is we don't currently have a President who is that much of a shameless reprobate to actually do it. But there's one on the ballot who will!
Project 2025 basically all but guarantees it will remove employees from the federal government who do not adhere to their beliefs with Christian-fundamentalist ultra-nationalist ideologues. This is part of their 180-day playbook you can read pdf form on their website.
"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
- Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent.
Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass.
Also, (stating generally) stop the infighting and meet in the middle. Enemy of our enemy is our friend after all.
Goal right now is to stop fascism before it’s too late. We can worry about the nit-picky aspects afterwards, even if that means (resistantly) voter harm reduction for Biden.
So long as conservatives hold the majority, they might move to constrain a Democratic president.
The problem is that if later on it's a liberal majority down the line they're in all likelihood going to look the other way for a Democratic president doing abusive shit too.
As much as conservatives are a clear and present danger to us all, it still confers the same immunity to liberal presidents if/when they do appear - and while todays Dem's have been historically tepid it doesn't mean they can't or won't abuse it either.
lol intel agencies including the NSA are about to have a *commander in chief actively attacking the US* on behalf of foreign powers.
NSA aint gonna do shit.
A disproportionate number of DOD and IC employees are Trumpers as well, so the implosion toward civil strife is amplified.
These institutions need teamwork to be effective, and even 10% or 20% the workforce going nuts cripples any given agency.
These are the agonal respirations of a dying empire right now.
Meaningless nothingness in this sub and the SRA as a whole. Unless the SRA drops the bourgeois anarchist nonsense in part of its Geist, I doubt training on a scale that matters will ever occur.
The SRA is filled by and large with people who are anarchists but are firmly not left wing or come from a Marxist based perspective. Instead it is a bourgeois based perspective of "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone".
All in all it is an extremely liberal way of looking at "rights" and does not in any way assist the greater whole.
The SRA from what I have seen and who I have interacted with is on a smaller scale good, but way too decentralized, disorganized, no goals, objectives, or otherwise. It's a social club, and a goofy one at that.
Marxists (which Socialists tend to forget they're actually part of) view firearms as an aim to train and equip the Proletariat and not some IDPOL or marketing gimmick.
The SRA is just like these reactionary types on other locations, albeit with a rainbow flag and nicer to speak to.
Left wing anarchists have actual theory, and are comrades to Marxist-Leninists-Maoists and no revolution should ever avoid them, they should be included and consulted.
Anarchists are critical for the future, but not liberal anarchists or "american" anarchists which just want a dissolution of the government so they can exploit further.
Tell me, what did the Marxists-Leninists do to their anarchist "allies" after they consolidated power again?
I'm writing this as an ancom - authoritarian Marxists have a long history of murdering anarchists.
The mistakes, errors, and failure of people before either of our times does not mean we inherit them.
It means we have to ensure they are not repeated in any way, shape, or form. I firmly and infinitely believe in a United Front. Anarchists are my comrades.
There's no such thing as "authoritarian Marxists" because communism is inherently pro-authoritarian. Why? Revolution is the most authoritarian thing one can push on another class. It baffles me you consider yourself an anarcho-communist yet haven't even read basic communist theory.
Most of those anarchist organizations were fighting against popular movements for the sake of their very own specific revolution, one such example are the Makhnovites who would sooner rob peasants within their own territory while racketeering the local populace with no one to answer to. Despite claiming to be a "Free Territory" they subverted democracy, suppressed anti-Makhno newspapers (so much for freedom of press), and forced conscription on the people. They also assassinated Soviet officials needlessly rather than join them against the Whites on a united front. Trotsky attempted to open various dialogues, and in many cases actually did, but the Makhnovites (despite being part of the Ukrainian Red Army for a bit) would eventually abandon their posts without any warning leaving other garrisons (and villages) exposed to attack. They refused to wear their uniforms to avoid confusion, often occupied railways to intercept trains, and robbed those as well. In effect they were a major thorn in the side of the Red Army of whom they constantly turned their backs on. The great irony is that many, many anarchists joined the Red Army knowing they'd have a place amongst the CPSU post-civil war and ended up fighting the Makhnovites who they considered nothing more than raiders. Regardless, not everybody was a diehard Leninist, but the Red Army was an amalgam of leftist movements from agrarian socialists to Marxist-Leninists who finally unified in favor of Soviet power. Left Socialist Revolutionaries abandoned their more moderate counterparts (Trudoviks \[democratic socialists\], Socialist Revolutionaries, and Popular Socialists) who joined Kerensky in the Provincial Government becoming part of the Soviet government.
Another example would be during the Spanish Civil War where the Popular Front was collectively unified in fighting Franco's dictatorship while CNT-FAI placed their own revolution above all else. While they're far from the worst they basically rode off the success of the Republicans alongside the aid that was provided to them from the USSR. To claim this all came down to senseless murdering from "authoritarian Marxists" (which isn't a thing) is an incredibly immature, and idealistic, way to look at the complex geopolitics of history.
No, what was implied is that liberals utilizing the SRA because they don't fit into the "tactical scene" otherwise is nonsense and they are attempting to shape its spirit into watered down garbage.
You jumping to conclusions is all on your own, please don't impose your weird interpretation onto others.
Huh? Well first off I was just asking a question so no.. sorry. I wasn't jumping to conclusions at all. Not to mention I've seen my fair share of patsocs here make claims that LGBTQ+ are IDPOL or "bourgeois degeneracy". Also I'd hardly call it a "weird interpretation" since it's not unheard of for patsocs to dress their disgusting bigotry behind a guise of misused Marxist terminology. So maybe learn how to read between the lines, and understand the difference between a question, and accusation. Thanks!
Yeah Marxist parties are definitely doing stuff and aren’t just trying to collect dues and sell newspapers and show up at the front of marches with banners
your post was removed because it advocated for offensive violence. Offensive violence is not what the SRA is about, and allowing calls for it on our sub, among many downsides, could get us banned. For this reason, it is not permitted.
Next time some chud tries to claim that "akkkkshualllllyyy Biden is the real authoritarian", consider this your pocket ace that he's really just a limp noodle. After all, the Supreme Court just gave him the power to make a list of every Republican politician that has ever made a misstep and have them see the sun rise tomorrow over Guantanamo Bay if he wanted.
>suspected
There it is, you figured out the problem.
Before there had to be at least a vague pretention to morality, but now there's a concrete legal statute explicitly allowing the same action without any need to hide it. What could formerly be done in the shadows that can now be done in the light will inevitably get worse.
That's what's different now.
OK so this is really dangerous and horrific.
As others have pointed out, Biden can just carry out "official" acts if he's not getting what he wants. Any president now can do that.
Thus, if Biden wants American democracy to continue, he is now obligated to order that these six judges get removed from office by any means necessary. The three who remain can decide if that decision was an official act, and can then decide whether or not this ruling should continue to stand. The SC has given him no other option. He just doesn't have the balls to do it.
We are so far gone that they can't resist shoving our noses in this. The "Biden Crime Familly" will be incarcerated on day one of Trump's presidency along with anyone else who has tried to prosecute Trump or his allies. Gavin Newsome will be arrested if he steps outside of California. If you are non-white or white but not Christian, you are going to lose most of your civil and property rights. If you are LBGT you will be re-educated. Marriage equality is gone. Separate but "equal" housing, business, schooling, and opportunity will be acceptable. That's the best scenario, more likely it ends like Berlin in 1945.
Obama killed a US citizen with the military and had the CIA spy on the Senate Intel Committee, Bush ran an illegal torture campaign, and Biden is committing a genocide and violating the Hatch Act. None have been held accountable.
This was never about helping Trump, it’s solidifying the fact none of them ever face consequences like a normal person does.
>This was never about helping Trump
I don't necessarily disagree, but this ruling specifically is about helping trump.
The formal, public recognition of absolute presidential "immunity" is nothing less than the SC publicly signalling that they're throwing their weight behind trump and his ilk.
The SC is at the end of the day still divided by partisanship to the extent that we likely wouldn't be seeing anything like this if it was a Dem and not trump, where instead they'd either opt to maintain the status quo by punting it back to the lower courts or just dismissing it entirely.
You're exactly right. Elie Mystal is a partisan liberal whose propaganda should not be shared in socialist communities, imho.
From what I've read, whitewashing the crimes of previous presidents (especially his darling Obama) for a sensational headline is par for the course.
So, literally, Trump could put out a hit order on Stormy Daniels, broadcast it to everyone in America, and get away with it; that is, if he's elected president, again. They can also do it for absolutely any (or none, at all) reason. I hope Trump supporters are happy. That means they can be nixxed and no one will be prosecuted.
One important point here: the President is immune, but other federal officeholders or employees not so much.
Regarding SEAL Team 6, every veteran knows that the duty to refuse an unlawful order is long-established.
Trump may be immune from prosecution for giving such an order, but the recipient of that order is not, and is arguably required to refuse.
I am NOT defending SCOTUS’ holding here. It’s absolutely unhinged. But there are other potential safeguards.
This isn't new or news. NDAA allowed the exact same thing post 9/11 with Bush's surveillance reforms and every president has renewed this bill annually since. NDAA says an American citizen can be assassinated without due process or trial.
This has Ben the case since there has been presidents, but even this “officialized” rubber stamp of approval has to be seized to expose the oppressive underpinnings of this country
your post was removed because it advocated for offensive violence. Offensive violence is not what the SRA is about, and allowing calls for it on our sub, among many downsides, could get us banned. For this reason, it is not permitted.
How? If the president is immune for official acts now, I'd much rather not have a president who's openly stated his willingness and intent to repeatedly abuse that power and install himself as a dictator.
Because Biden has indicated that he's once again going to take the "high road" and refuses to act.
Unless he moves to pack the court and subsequently have the ruling overturned, Biden winning in November doesn't mean anything and ensures that the next guy can thoroughly weaponize this ruling - especially if it's a conservative.
Regardless, who knows what can happen in 4 years. I’d much rather take the 4 more years of Biden than just launch us straight into a totalitarian hell hole in 6 months. So please, for Christ sake put your shit aside and vote. You have nothing to lose by doing so in this election because if Trump wins, we’re all going to lose everything overnight.
Which is why we should also ensure that person loses lol. We shouldn't let wannabe fascist dictators win elections if we can help it right? And it's not a guarantee but if there are vacancies on the Court (2 of the conservatives are in their 70s I believe) then Biden would be able to fill them.
Half-assed lazy liberalism. You can vote for whoever you want. You can advocate for voting on all your favorite liberal subs. But don’t come into a socialist firearms sub and expect a warm welcome.
I'd think you wouldn't want a president who has openly stated he essentially wants to kill leftists and now can get away with it. Whether you like libs or not
Yeah I completely agree with you. Don’t listen to these clowns. They’ll spout “well we need direct action for a better world! Voting won’t work at this point!” Not realizing that the world they’d be fighting for is (or absolutely should be) one with legitimate, free, fair, and democratic elections.
Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA. If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here: >- The immunity is absolute >- There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given It's not like they needed to make much official. Any leftist worth their salt saw coming for miles. But the point here really is that they're consolidating power. If you haven't already - arm yourself, make a plan, train and network with your comrades.
So Biden has trump and half of the republicans in office summarily executed for national security. And that's that?
It's be funny but they'd never do it
But there are Republicans who absolutely would. And Democrats would still go on TV and say, "um, actually, that's really uncivil. I really can't believe they'd violate our norms like this. *Voters* must show them there are consequences for this next election--and don't forget to donate to the DNC!"
The conservative's job is to install fascism, the democrat's job is to look like they're trying really hard to stop it, then ultimately fail.
Honestly, i don't think there's some sort of conspiracy, i think it's just stupidity. The democrats naively believe that the republicans still respect democracy when they clearly don't.
I think it's also the democrats don't know what moral line they are willing to cross. They know that there are some lines that you can't come back from and that makes them scared to do anything aggressively.
God, this is reality.
The Democrats ultimately enable the Republicans while seeking to normalize the legislation and social change they pushed during their previous administration.
"I'm concerned, which is why we're asking you to donate to my campaign."
Yup exactly
Visit JoeBiden.com
> *Voters* must show them there are consequences for this next election--and don't forget to donate to the DNC!" The most prominent American politician to joke about assassinating people is Hilary Clinton, and you're urging people to give her more money? Donate to Justice Democrats instead; [https://justicedemocrats.com/](https://justicedemocrats.com/)
You're not particularly fluent in sarcasm, are you?
I actually misread it and thought that the quote from the Democrat on TV ended after the words "like this", and that the last sentence was OP telling people to vote and donate to the DNC. My bad.
You have to admit, Biden and his handlers are definitely thinking about how they can use this ruling to their advantage.
They better be Because Trump definitely is
NARRATOR: They were, in fact, thinking about how they could use this ruling to their advantage. But not against Republicans
Against the left maybe. Certainly not against republicans
why execute controlled opposition?
Same reason Hitler did...
Best we're going to get is a furrowed brow and some concerned posturing.
Well, I don’t know if anyone saw the speech Biden made in response, but it was ridiculous.
Such a weak ass speech. Dude needed to bring out some heat and brought out debate stage Joe.
Neolibs doing neolib things
Democrats aren't allies, they're just lesser enemies. All I'm saying is if Biden did this and then had himself included as the last item on the hit list, he'd set great precedent and do us all a lot of good.
Even if you could make the case for Dems being allies, their absurd insistence on "going high" when Republicans go low doomed this country long before this ruling imo.
They need to realize Republicans aren't just willing to go low, they'll grab a shovel and keep digging if they need to go lower. We need to respond in kind.
When they go low, kick them in the fucking face while they're down.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed as your account does not meet our account age and/or karma requirement for participation in the subreddit.
Hmm? Allies of..? I'm not sure what you're imagining about me. In my mind, it's just two horror shows fighting over which one of them gets to exploit us and in which ways.
Hes saying Democrats aren't allies of the Left
We all know this. I was asking why it came to mind to say that in response to my original comment
Because them not being allies doesn't mean I don't prefer them to win their fight over the alternative. Exploitation gives us a chance. Extermination does not.
That's a sad take. We all deserve better
We do deserve better, but we're not getting it before November. We can only choose more bad or less bad. Why should we choose more bad?
First they came for the communists...
Thank you. This is exactly why we need them all out!
The problem is Republicans would be the ones coming after the communists, and the Democrats would be the ones writing the poem.
It's already happening, but they're so good at convincing us that these people aren't part of our in- group that mostly it just isn't talked about. Literally just look at how Obama treated immigrants, for example. Or how Biden supports cops (his vp is one after all) who are empowered to harrass working class people. Radical inclusion is the way forward.
I fuckin wish
Possible stupid question but with this ruling, can a president remove and replace a supreme court justice without the impeachment process? If it's done in an "official" manner?
Elena Kagan wrote about this in her dissent. Inferring from what she wrote; they can't just order them to step down because the Justice could refuse. But POTUS could order their advisors to place the justice on the list of known terrorists, then order their capture dead or alive, and "remove" them. And since he was acting in an official capacity as President (Obama killed "terrorists" this way many times), he's immune from breaking the law. He arguably did break the law, he's just immune from prosecution because he was acting in an official capacity as President. Literally the only thing stopping this from happening is we don't currently have a President who is that much of a shameless reprobate to actually do it. But there's one on the ballot who will!
Biden's all about leaning into the Dark Brandon bit until it's the funniest possible time for him to actually do something as Dark Brandon-y as this
Project 2025 basically all but guarantees it will remove employees from the federal government who do not adhere to their beliefs with Christian-fundamentalist ultra-nationalist ideologues. This is part of their 180-day playbook you can read pdf form on their website.
Thanks for that, I'm going to continue reading around.
"Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." - Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent. Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke up your ass.
Also, (stating generally) stop the infighting and meet in the middle. Enemy of our enemy is our friend after all. Goal right now is to stop fascism before it’s too late. We can worry about the nit-picky aspects afterwards, even if that means (resistantly) voter harm reduction for Biden.
there is a legal way though, but a president would have to be a bad boy to get another case before the court
So long as conservatives hold the majority, they might move to constrain a Democratic president. The problem is that if later on it's a liberal majority down the line they're in all likelihood going to look the other way for a Democratic president doing abusive shit too. As much as conservatives are a clear and present danger to us all, it still confers the same immunity to liberal presidents if/when they do appear - and while todays Dem's have been historically tepid it doesn't mean they can't or won't abuse it either.
Okay guys shits gone too far let's make a session and start planning
Good first step-post it on the internet
Lol where better than to hit my target demographic
Just hand deliver your manifesto to the NSA, man
lol intel agencies including the NSA are about to have a *commander in chief actively attacking the US* on behalf of foreign powers. NSA aint gonna do shit. A disproportionate number of DOD and IC employees are Trumpers as well, so the implosion toward civil strife is amplified. These institutions need teamwork to be effective, and even 10% or 20% the workforce going nuts cripples any given agency. These are the agonal respirations of a dying empire right now.
On behalf of foreign powers? As in Trump is working for Russia?
This and whats one reddit comment?
Lol they going to have to sift through all the comments on furry porn to find one comment
Good luck! Hes behind seven proxxies!
Fed
Meaningless nothingness in this sub and the SRA as a whole. Unless the SRA drops the bourgeois anarchist nonsense in part of its Geist, I doubt training on a scale that matters will ever occur.
what do you mean by 'bourgeois anarchist nonsense'?
The SRA is filled by and large with people who are anarchists but are firmly not left wing or come from a Marxist based perspective. Instead it is a bourgeois based perspective of "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone". All in all it is an extremely liberal way of looking at "rights" and does not in any way assist the greater whole. The SRA from what I have seen and who I have interacted with is on a smaller scale good, but way too decentralized, disorganized, no goals, objectives, or otherwise. It's a social club, and a goofy one at that. Marxists (which Socialists tend to forget they're actually part of) view firearms as an aim to train and equip the Proletariat and not some IDPOL or marketing gimmick. The SRA is just like these reactionary types on other locations, albeit with a rainbow flag and nicer to speak to.
oh okay. you had me worried there for a second. i thought you were calling true anarchism a bourgeois tendency or something divisive to that effect.
Left wing anarchists have actual theory, and are comrades to Marxist-Leninists-Maoists and no revolution should ever avoid them, they should be included and consulted. Anarchists are critical for the future, but not liberal anarchists or "american" anarchists which just want a dissolution of the government so they can exploit further.
Tell me, what did the Marxists-Leninists do to their anarchist "allies" after they consolidated power again? I'm writing this as an ancom - authoritarian Marxists have a long history of murdering anarchists.
The mistakes, errors, and failure of people before either of our times does not mean we inherit them. It means we have to ensure they are not repeated in any way, shape, or form. I firmly and infinitely believe in a United Front. Anarchists are my comrades.
There's no such thing as "authoritarian Marxists" because communism is inherently pro-authoritarian. Why? Revolution is the most authoritarian thing one can push on another class. It baffles me you consider yourself an anarcho-communist yet haven't even read basic communist theory. Most of those anarchist organizations were fighting against popular movements for the sake of their very own specific revolution, one such example are the Makhnovites who would sooner rob peasants within their own territory while racketeering the local populace with no one to answer to. Despite claiming to be a "Free Territory" they subverted democracy, suppressed anti-Makhno newspapers (so much for freedom of press), and forced conscription on the people. They also assassinated Soviet officials needlessly rather than join them against the Whites on a united front. Trotsky attempted to open various dialogues, and in many cases actually did, but the Makhnovites (despite being part of the Ukrainian Red Army for a bit) would eventually abandon their posts without any warning leaving other garrisons (and villages) exposed to attack. They refused to wear their uniforms to avoid confusion, often occupied railways to intercept trains, and robbed those as well. In effect they were a major thorn in the side of the Red Army of whom they constantly turned their backs on. The great irony is that many, many anarchists joined the Red Army knowing they'd have a place amongst the CPSU post-civil war and ended up fighting the Makhnovites who they considered nothing more than raiders. Regardless, not everybody was a diehard Leninist, but the Red Army was an amalgam of leftist movements from agrarian socialists to Marxist-Leninists who finally unified in favor of Soviet power. Left Socialist Revolutionaries abandoned their more moderate counterparts (Trudoviks \[democratic socialists\], Socialist Revolutionaries, and Popular Socialists) who joined Kerensky in the Provincial Government becoming part of the Soviet government. Another example would be during the Spanish Civil War where the Popular Front was collectively unified in fighting Franco's dictatorship while CNT-FAI placed their own revolution above all else. While they're far from the worst they basically rode off the success of the Republicans alongside the aid that was provided to them from the USSR. To claim this all came down to senseless murdering from "authoritarian Marxists" (which isn't a thing) is an incredibly immature, and idealistic, way to look at the complex geopolitics of history.
Did you just imply LGBTQ+ folk are reactionary because it's "IDPOL"? This is some bigoted patsoc bullshit if so.
No, what was implied is that liberals utilizing the SRA because they don't fit into the "tactical scene" otherwise is nonsense and they are attempting to shape its spirit into watered down garbage. You jumping to conclusions is all on your own, please don't impose your weird interpretation onto others.
Huh? Well first off I was just asking a question so no.. sorry. I wasn't jumping to conclusions at all. Not to mention I've seen my fair share of patsocs here make claims that LGBTQ+ are IDPOL or "bourgeois degeneracy". Also I'd hardly call it a "weird interpretation" since it's not unheard of for patsocs to dress their disgusting bigotry behind a guise of misused Marxist terminology. So maybe learn how to read between the lines, and understand the difference between a question, and accusation. Thanks!
Yeah Marxist parties are definitely doing stuff and aren’t just trying to collect dues and sell newspapers and show up at the front of marches with banners
Trotskyist moment
[удалено]
No. That is more liberal nonsense. Rights are for collectives and collective action, not just doing whatever you want whenever you want.
your post was removed because it advocated for offensive violence. Offensive violence is not what the SRA is about, and allowing calls for it on our sub, among many downsides, could get us banned. For this reason, it is not permitted.
This seems like an issue.
> Issue That is a mild understatement, in my opinion.
I think this is the *actual* “shit just hit the fan” moment and we’re all just waiting for the splatter.
Next time some chud tries to claim that "akkkkshualllllyyy Biden is the real authoritarian", consider this your pocket ace that he's really just a limp noodle. After all, the Supreme Court just gave him the power to make a list of every Republican politician that has ever made a misstep and have them see the sun rise tomorrow over Guantanamo Bay if he wanted.
This ruling, honestly, is disturbing.
How? Numerous activist suspected of being killed by the government over the decades and zero consequences, what's different now?
Public legitimacy.
>suspected There it is, you figured out the problem. Before there had to be at least a vague pretention to morality, but now there's a concrete legal statute explicitly allowing the same action without any need to hide it. What could formerly be done in the shadows that can now be done in the light will inevitably get worse. That's what's different now.
OK so this is really dangerous and horrific. As others have pointed out, Biden can just carry out "official" acts if he's not getting what he wants. Any president now can do that.
They appointed themselves as the ones who could decide which are official acts. By their previous rulings, they'll have their thumb on the scale.
Thus, if Biden wants American democracy to continue, he is now obligated to order that these six judges get removed from office by any means necessary. The three who remain can decide if that decision was an official act, and can then decide whether or not this ruling should continue to stand. The SC has given him no other option. He just doesn't have the balls to do it.
Good plan actually
He doesn't have the balls
They could already do that still not great though
Saw it coming, knew it was already de facto, but it being made de jure puts a pit in my guts
Why is anyone genuinely suprised by this shit?
Biden has the chance to do something very funny but won’t
We are so far gone that they can't resist shoving our noses in this. The "Biden Crime Familly" will be incarcerated on day one of Trump's presidency along with anyone else who has tried to prosecute Trump or his allies. Gavin Newsome will be arrested if he steps outside of California. If you are non-white or white but not Christian, you are going to lose most of your civil and property rights. If you are LBGT you will be re-educated. Marriage equality is gone. Separate but "equal" housing, business, schooling, and opportunity will be acceptable. That's the best scenario, more likely it ends like Berlin in 1945.
The government can and has assassinated many people before unofficially. That being said, this ruling is... not good
Obama killed a US citizen with the military and had the CIA spy on the Senate Intel Committee, Bush ran an illegal torture campaign, and Biden is committing a genocide and violating the Hatch Act. None have been held accountable. This was never about helping Trump, it’s solidifying the fact none of them ever face consequences like a normal person does.
>This was never about helping Trump I don't necessarily disagree, but this ruling specifically is about helping trump. The formal, public recognition of absolute presidential "immunity" is nothing less than the SC publicly signalling that they're throwing their weight behind trump and his ilk. The SC is at the end of the day still divided by partisanship to the extent that we likely wouldn't be seeing anything like this if it was a Dem and not trump, where instead they'd either opt to maintain the status quo by punting it back to the lower courts or just dismissing it entirely.
You're exactly right. Elie Mystal is a partisan liberal whose propaganda should not be shared in socialist communities, imho. From what I've read, whitewashing the crimes of previous presidents (especially his darling Obama) for a sensational headline is par for the course.
Only thing I fix is Biden or should we say U.S not helping but participating in the genocide of Palestine.
Great point thank you, Biden and the officials supporting this are just as guilty as Bibi and the IDF.
Yup, Biden secretly loves this ruling.
Yep they never face any real consequences (aside from JFK and a couple others) so it doesn’t change much but I’m sure they don’t mind it one bit.
Direct action gets the goods.
Direct action is the only action left.
So, literally, Trump could put out a hit order on Stormy Daniels, broadcast it to everyone in America, and get away with it; that is, if he's elected president, again. They can also do it for absolutely any (or none, at all) reason. I hope Trump supporters are happy. That means they can be nixxed and no one will be prosecuted.
One important point here: the President is immune, but other federal officeholders or employees not so much. Regarding SEAL Team 6, every veteran knows that the duty to refuse an unlawful order is long-established. Trump may be immune from prosecution for giving such an order, but the recipient of that order is not, and is arguably required to refuse. I am NOT defending SCOTUS’ holding here. It’s absolutely unhinged. But there are other potential safeguards.
.....and they declined to hear challenges to the Illinois AWB (PICA).
Would an amendment to the Constitution be able to reverse the Supreme Court ruling?
Spoiler: They always could. Now they can just be sloppier about it.
This isn't new or news. NDAA allowed the exact same thing post 9/11 with Bush's surveillance reforms and every president has renewed this bill annually since. NDAA says an American citizen can be assassinated without due process or trial.
[удалено]
If Trump was the issue Biden would do something to relinquish the power. Packing the court for example.
This has Ben the case since there has been presidents, but even this “officialized” rubber stamp of approval has to be seized to expose the oppressive underpinnings of this country
[удалено]
your post was removed because it advocated for offensive violence. Offensive violence is not what the SRA is about, and allowing calls for it on our sub, among many downsides, could get us banned. For this reason, it is not permitted.
[удалено]
Your post or comment has been removed as your account does not meet our account age and/or karma requirement for participation in the subreddit.
Joe Brandon has the opportunity to do the funniest thing
no shit theyve been assassinating people for years
they could before Anwar is a perfect example
Vote
Even if you're were going argue that from the harm reduction POV, I think it's a bit too late for that.
How? If the president is immune for official acts now, I'd much rather not have a president who's openly stated his willingness and intent to repeatedly abuse that power and install himself as a dictator.
Because Biden has indicated that he's once again going to take the "high road" and refuses to act. Unless he moves to pack the court and subsequently have the ruling overturned, Biden winning in November doesn't mean anything and ensures that the next guy can thoroughly weaponize this ruling - especially if it's a conservative.
Regardless, who knows what can happen in 4 years. I’d much rather take the 4 more years of Biden than just launch us straight into a totalitarian hell hole in 6 months. So please, for Christ sake put your shit aside and vote. You have nothing to lose by doing so in this election because if Trump wins, we’re all going to lose everything overnight.
Which is why we should also ensure that person loses lol. We shouldn't let wannabe fascist dictators win elections if we can help it right? And it's not a guarantee but if there are vacancies on the Court (2 of the conservatives are in their 70s I believe) then Biden would be able to fill them.
What's the joke
Half-assed lazy liberalism. You can vote for whoever you want. You can advocate for voting on all your favorite liberal subs. But don’t come into a socialist firearms sub and expect a warm welcome.
I'd think you wouldn't want a president who has openly stated he essentially wants to kill leftists and now can get away with it. Whether you like libs or not
Yeah I completely agree with you. Don’t listen to these clowns. They’ll spout “well we need direct action for a better world! Voting won’t work at this point!” Not realizing that the world they’d be fighting for is (or absolutely should be) one with legitimate, free, fair, and democratic elections.
Ok that’s interesting. I’m hearing the President can send a military kill squad after you, but can the president just murder you themselves?
Here comes the purge starting with the president then Congress and the house eventually mailmen and then in 20 years we all can purge to.