mastodon.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
The original server operated by the Mastodon gGmbH non-profit

Administered by:

Server stats:

336K
active users

TC Won't Give In To Lies

@noiseician @StillIRise1963
Only the 9 people in government with complete immunity and lifetime tenure can see the wisdom of giving immunity to the Commander In Chief.

SMH. Navalny is what happens when the leader has immunity.

@TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 only people who pretend US presidents have the right to order average citizens killed believe that the presidency has and needs some sort of immunity.

Every death by the government should be lawful, and none should happen outside of courts and explicitly declared wars.

I can't believe this timeline.

@Urban_Hermit @TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 Judicial execution would be moral in a system that makes no mistakes, but ours is run by humans, and therefore we can't allow it. Likewise, if we only fought wars for noble purposes.

The PotUS has ordered that US citizens be killed, as "enemy combatants", in the absence of judicial order or declaration of war. We complained about it, a little, but didn't want to press the issue for a likely terrorist.

But political rivals? No.

@Urban_Hermit @TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 Everyone in the world can predict the outcome if that is allowed. That is how Putin orders his private axe-men to put a Novichok poison into Alexei Navalny's underwear before he gets on a plane. The one who is elevated to be above the law becomes a monster that can only be obeyed or destroyed.

@log @Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963
Yep, as the saying goes these past few months:

Navalny is what happens when a President has immunity.

@log @Urban_Hermit @TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 the state should never be empowered to kill its citizens, full stop.

@KatLS @log @Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963
I could argue that, but I believe we can both agree that any power to kill should *always* be open to judicial scrutiny.

@TCatInReality @log @Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963 agreed, assuming the judiciary isn’t a cult front group, of course.

@Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963

IMO, the extremist right on the Court only care about the accumulation of power to accomplish their objectives, just like everyone on the right.

In light of that, of course they want POTUS immunity.

@tillshadeisgone @Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963
💯

The Federalist Society was always a networking group to leverage its connection to gain judicial power. From early days, the GOP supported it to gain political power and financial advantage.

It is a dangerous symbiotic relationship.

@TCatInReality @Urban_Hermit @noiseician @StillIRise1963

Exactly. It’s long past time to think of the Supreme Court as an arbiter of law

It’s now just another arm of the right-wing power grab, and we should treat it that way

Anything progressive and positive will need to be accomplished *in spite of* the Supreme Court’s efforts to squash it

@peterbutler @TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 some things need to be fixed with very explicit constitutional amendments.

There were 12 passed from 1913 to 1992. The difficulty is not insurmountable. I would like to see some in the Democratic Party Platform, until enacted.

@peterbutler @TCatInReality @noiseician @StillIRise1963 I had heard of it my whole life and was surprised to find that it never passed and the Supreme Court holds that discrimination based on sex is not unconstitutional. Illegal by legislation, but not the constitution. One would suppose they want to preserve their right to bring back "Men wanted for" language in job want ads. If women and men were absolutely equal under the US constitution, the right to bodily autonomy might be supported.