• @notanaltaccount
    link
    353 days ago

    Biden doesn’t have the balls to do this. It would be cool as heck if he did.

    • @chuckleslord
      link
      313 days ago

      No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.

      • @notanaltaccount
        link
        102 days ago

        Wild response

        The idea od suggesting following any prior tactics of Andrew Jackson is revolting, as cool as your response is

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          112 days ago

          Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn’t have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court “ultimate decider” powers wasn’t a problem.

      • @TaterTurnipTulip
        link
        82 days ago

        Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way…

        This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.

    • @foggy
      link
      33 days ago

      Maybe not. But Dark Brandon does…

      • @notanaltaccount
        link
        83 days ago

        If there were ever a time for Dark Brandon to emerge, this would be it!