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.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    142·
    6 months ago

    You can usually tell how old someone is by whether or not they think, “liberal,” and, “progressive,” are synonyms.

    • MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      47·
      6 months ago

      Counterpoint- you can tell how terminally online someone is by thinking liberal doesn’t mean progressive in the US.

      I disagree with the labeling but it’s one of the silly infighting things people on the left have to understand. Fifteen years ago I was proud to call myself a liberal. Now I know the “real” definition and I don’t call myself that. But my positions haven’t changed much. I’m really hearing what anarchists have to say these days but I call myself a socialist, the same as I did back then.