389
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 31 points 2 weeks ago

Now 'ere's what crazy-ol' u/peopleproblems would do. Crazy ol' u/peopleroblems would come to the sum of bitches we have in Acquisitions, and say 'how many weeks could a force of exactly Ukraine's force hold a position with everything we have currently sitting in storage deployment ready, but not otherwise deployed? Ok, and how about all the equipment we have being delivered under contract for that many weeks? Ok, now, get me a number to replace all that equipment with the newest contracts set to immediately fill everything we send for that first chunk. Ok, now double it, and phone the pencil pushers to get procurement offers for this shit from the defense manufacturers. Yes, definitely let their boards know too. Oh, don't mention where the already purchased equipment is going, that's national security interest. Just mention the US is interested in making them rich in turn for securing our country for a long time."

"And give that number to Congress?"

"Once the various board members hear first. We gotta feed the handlers before we treat the pawns in Congress."

"Sir is that, legal?"

"It's an official act. I just made it legal."

[-] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

I get the sentiment.

But i just want to make sure that everyone here knows that biden doesnt have carte blanche to do what he wants because hes not exactly aligned with the conservative supreme court that decides if its an official act or not.

I see this shit all the time and with the way the election went, im pretty convinced that the american electorate is dumb enough to think biden is actually immune.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

In this case, I don't think SCOTUS would be able to do much. They tied their own hands on the "official presidential act" thing. It would have to be up to congress.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

They conveniently forgot to define what constitutes an "official act", meaning they can re-interpret the meaning of that on the fly in order to reward their friends and punish opponents.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

They said congress had to decide that.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's not going to make this any easier or more difficult. Conservative officials all walk in lockstep.

[-] Earflap@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

Scotus is completely anathema to giving power away to other branches. No, if there is a question on what constitutes an official act it gets remanded to the lower courts.

this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2024
389 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39332 readers
2272 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS