Speaks for itself. We’ve been beyond satire for a long time but this one still got me.

    • Kwakigra@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      4 months ago

      The Supreme Court members who made this decision are in official act range right now at this moment. Donald Trump is in official act range at this moment as well. Not to draw conclusions but I’m not sure how serious the Democrats are about staying in power.

        • galoisghost@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          The should just be honest:

          “Yes this is bad, but we might want to use this power ourselves so we won’t do anything to reverse it. You just need to vote so only WE have the power to use it.”

            • entropicdrift@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              Kill or forcibly resign everyone on the Supreme court who voted in favor of the decision, appoint new justices, and have it overturned.

              More realistically? Add more members to the Court so they’re the majority and then overturn it.

          • araneae@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            99% of democracies give up right before hitting it big and concentrating supreme power in the hands of a benevolent dictator.

            Examine this change of logic. The democrats want a mandate from the people before they act antidemocratically? So that they can maintain the highground when they do an inherently lowdown thing? And they could do it now but they want a blue election first? Are you a snake eating its own tail?

  • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    All I’ve heard from MAGA so far is that fake electors aren’t illegal, followed by some explanation involving JFK and Hawaii. Now Trump himself is admitting that they’re illegal, but he’s immune?

    A lot more people are about to go to jail for him.

    Also, fuck MAGA for trying to nullify my vote.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 months ago

    🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:

    Click here to see the summary

    Speaking to CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, Will Scharf, an attorney for the former president, laid out the next steps for special counsel Jack Smith’s case following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that former presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts but no immunity for private acts.

    In a federal indictment filed in August, Trump is facing four charges pertaining to his alleged attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

    Speaking to Collins, Scharf said that Smith’s “case should be dismissed” because it concerns official acts not private ones.

    Meanwhile Trump celebrated the ruling in a post to Truth Social, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.

    The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the ruling would not “change the facts” that Trump tried to “overthrow the results of a free and fair election.”

    “Trump is already running for president as a convicted felon for the very same reason he sat idly by while the mob violently attacked the Capitol: he thinks he’s above the law and is willing to do anything to gain and hold onto power for himself.”


    Saved 64% of original text.

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Click here to see the summary

      Good bot

      A sudden wall of text is jarring while reading comments, thank you to whoever made this change 👍

  • seang96@spgrn.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Wouldn’t their ruling not apply retroactively? Or if he declares it now it wouldn’t mean anything since he isn’t the sitting president?

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Their ruling isn’t new law, it’s telling people what the law already said. Even all the stuff they made up along the way.

      • seang96@spgrn.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        And the definition of “official” is so gray it could be anything and not anything! Gotta love vauge interpretations from what is supposed to be our finest judges.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          I particularly like that they hinted that some things in the trial were official and some things weren’t, but they’re not going to tell anyone what they are at this time, we have to wait for the appeal to work its way back up. At which point the election will be over and they’ll just say “psyche, it’s all official”.