Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
The scotus ruling is breaking my brain. How is this guy going to be remotely constrained in a second term when Project 2025 is a blueprint for vastly more presidential power?
4 replies
15 recasts
81 reactions
Christian Montoya 🦊
@m0nt0y4
The SCOTUS ruling simply upholds decades of legal precedence that was already in place The only way to constrain a democratically elected leader from acting in his official, constitutionally protected capacity is to not elect him
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
That would be true if it was a unanimous ruling. It clearly wasn’t.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Christian Montoya 🦊
@m0nt0y4
Just because some justices are dumb doesn’t mean they have a point. This is helpful: https://x.com/jtodd601/status/1807941989901688859?s=46&t=jBELT-4pGKlkq4e7X7vjdg
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
GIGAMΞSH
@gigamesh
Ah ok. Attempting to prevent even more centralized power that enables the atrocities in that list is the “dumb” position. Got it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Christian Montoya 🦊
@m0nt0y4
It’s only dumb because it’s a misunderstanding of how government works. The federal government has a lot of power. This may be a new realization to leftists but it’s not a new realization to everyone. There are ways to limit that power, like constitutional amendments that make certain actions unconstitutional or checks from other branches. But opening up a democratically elected leader to the risk of prosecution for acting within his or her constitutional duties isn’t it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Christian Montoya 🦊
@m0nt0y4
I think a good question to ask yourself is, why haven’t any of those things that happened in the past been declared unconstitutional? Why is no one proposing amendments to prevent that from happening again?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
