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.

  • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
    1·
    6 months ago

    lol like buttigieg would do ANY of that, do you remember how hard and fast he flipflopped on universal healthcare?

    • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
      2·
      6 months ago

      I agree that we have no idea if he’d actually go through with reforming the court if given the opportunity - I’m just pointing out that Democrats have openly called for reforming the court, on the presidential debate stage, as recently as 2019. It shouldn’t be viewed as a non-starter - especially when these ideas were coming from the so-called moderate wing of the party.

      On the M4A topic, it’s crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn’t be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.

      • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz
        1·
        6 months ago

        On the M4A topic, it’s crazy to me how its supporters have managed to ally themselves with the private healthcare lobby in opposing a competitive public option. If Medicare is more efficient than profit-driven insurance, as we all suspect, then forcing private insurance to compete with it puts us on a direct path to a single-payer system. Pete is a democratic capitalist - it shouldn’t be a surprise that his version of M4A uses the system in place to get us there. If Bernie amended his bill to include a 15-year transition plan I doubt anyone would accuse him of flip-flopping.

        The difference between Bernie and Pete is Bernie has proven he won’t flip flop like Obama, Bernie has proven he acts according to a genuinely socialist vision. Pete is just another milquetoast status quo manager who knows what coat of paint looks fresh and cool this season and adopts his policy stances to match that. Bernie is literally the polar opposite of that.

        • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
          1·
          6 months ago

          To be fair I think it’s too early in Pete’s political career for me to say that he stands by what he says or for you to say that he doesn’t. I don’t think anyone can hold a candle to Bernie on ideological consistency - he would rather lose than compromise. We all admire him for that, but it makes him a better activist than politician. I say this as someone who donated to his campaign and voted for him twice.

          I agree that Pete is the polar opposite, but I don’t know if it’s a bad thing. Early on he said that he wanted the primaries to be a debate of ideas, and that - if nominated - he would champion the platform of the party. That could be the MO of a grifter, or it could be someone who’s serious about restoring democracy. I don’t blame anyone for being skeptical, but if we’re dismissing him because we have concerns about his healthcare plan, I’d say we’re still living in 2016.