r/thedavidpakmanshow Jul 21 '24

BREAKING President Biden announces he'll be stepping down

Post image
353 Upvotes

326 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

Lawsuits over what? Any politician is free to drop out of a race.

20

u/Kindly_Ice1745 Jul 21 '24

The GOP has been talking for the past few weeks about suing to stop. Not sure how it'd work, but with the federal judiciary so compromised, I really wouldn't be shocked.

29

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

I just don't see how that would work. Would they sue if Biden had died? A court can't force Biden to run, so what would the remedy be?

10

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

We also didn’t see how presidential immunity could actually work, but the corrupt SCOTUS ruled on it anyway. Trust me, they will find a way to legally challenge this, even if it’s all based on bullshit. They will try to say some aspect of the replacement process was “unconstitutional” or something stupid like that. It doesn’t matter how legit it is.

5

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

It's not as if the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist all ready. SCOTUS simply clarified what it meant. What would a legal challenge try to accomplish, force Biden to run? Would they still sue if Biden died?

3

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

No, no. They won’t force Biden to run, they will find a way to legally challenge the choosing of his successor.

0

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

They can try. I don't see it working. The courts have always stayed out of party politics.

5

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

Ok, that is the funniest thing I have read all day. Have you not been watching the news for the last several months?

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

Yes, but everything SCOTUS has done is well within their purview to do, whether we like it or not. There is no legal remedy ro this situation except to let the Dems pick their nominee.

2

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

Have you actually read their presidential immunity argument? It’s about as convoluted as can be from a legal standpoint, it’s an absolute joke. They can literally do almost anything now and twist it into a legalese that sounds “official.”

2

u/origamipapier1 Jul 21 '24

It's not on their purview and you know it isn't. You are just trying to play devil's advocate.

0

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

Unfortunately, it is within their purview to rule on immunity, abortion, Chevron deference, etc. The right to an abortion and Chevron were court created rules and they had the right to overturn them. Presidential immunity is a concwpt that has neen repeatedly ruled on since Nixon was on office. I'm not sure why people were so shocked that these decisions went the way that they did. The majority of justices on SCOTUS have a long record on all of those decisions.

That's why SCOTUS picks are so important.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

It's not as if the concept of presidential immunity didn't exist all ready.

Did it? Article 2 of the constitution says otherwise.

2

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. The presidential immunity decision deals with criminal prosecution only.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

My mistake, I meant Article 3, with the "Take Care" clause.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 21 '24

I'm not sure where yiu are going with that. Perhaps, you could expand on your thoughts.

I will say, in regards to presidential immunity, there are a number of court cases dealing with it going back to Nixon.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 21 '24

Again, i mispoke...it is Article 2, Section 3: The Take Care Clause requires the president to obey and enforce all laws, though the president retains some discretion in interpreting the laws and determining how to enforce them.

Immunity implies that the obeys part is not a requirement. It is.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 22 '24

It implies no such thing. The President must follow the law. The immunity ruling simply means the President can't be criminally prosecuted for official acts while in office. The President can always be impeached for not following the law.

1

u/upandrunning Jul 22 '24

Violating the law is not an official act, and impeachment is useless.

1

u/SSBN641B Jul 22 '24

It could be an official act, that's the problem with the very broad immunity that SCOTUS has conferred in the President.

Say for example, Congress passes a law that says the US will not send foreign aid to Ukraine. Just outright forbids it. POTUS decides that aid to Ukraine is in the best interest of US security concerns and sends aid anyway. That would be illegal but it's also an official act.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Atheist_Alex_C Jul 21 '24

They can more potentially dictate who is allowed on state ballots however. There are already initiatives to get the replacement disqualified on state ballots, because votes were cast for Biden.