Biden surrogates brushed off questions about reining in the court, while emphasizing the gravity of a second Trump term.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago with orders to neutralize the “primary threat to freedom and democracy” in the United States. He could issue an edict that all digital or physical evidence of his debate performance last week be destroyed. Or he could just use this chilling partisan decision, the latest 6-3 ruling in a term that was characterized by a staggering number of them, as an opportunity to finally embrace the movement to reform the Supreme Court.

But Biden is not planning to do any of that. Shortly after the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Trump v. The United States, the Biden campaign held a press call with surrogates, including Harry Dunn, a Capitol police officer who was on duty the day Trump supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6; Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas); and deputy campaign manager Quentin Fulks.

Their message was simple: It’s terrifying to contemplate what Donald Trump might do with these powers if he’s reelected.

“We have to do everything in our power to stop him,” Fulks said.

Everything, that is, except take material action to rein in the increasingly lawless and openly right-wing Supreme Court.

  • spidermanchild
    11·
    6 months ago

    You kept using the words “personal interests” though. When you extend those interests to broader society, that’s no longer personal by definition. You’re just describing voting for what you believe will create the society you want to live in, but you framed it in a misleading way as if personal greed will get us there.

    On a philosophical level, you’ve separated these qualities from their application. Can we agree that when a situation calls for empathy but someone employs violence, that this is bad?

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      2·
      6 months ago

      No, when I want democracy, that’s what I want. That is my personal interest even if it involves you. You could hate democracy, then you’d be my foe. I would not talk it over with you, I would just steamroll you.

      I would only negotiate if what you want is really close to what I want, and I made a calculation that an additional ally is worth more to me than the exactitude of my aim/interest. But again, I, and I alone, make that calculation for my benefit alone.

      I am at peace with the notion that some people are better off dead.

      I make all the major life changing strategic decisions in solitude.