• Merlin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    Absolutely. People talk about another civil war. If you start hear ing about spontaneous violence in the streets, that’s when you need to worry. I think if this actually passed, we’d start hearing about stuff like that.

    Realistically, Republicans know this has no chance of passing. Frankly, I think this is just mean-spirited trolling–which is a good indicator of the state of our politics. We want to see the other side suffer.

    • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      They introduce it now, and even some conservatives laugh it off as “just a joke,” but within the next 4 years, it will be raised many more times, each time with them getting more serious. They put it out there like this so it’s less shocking the second, third, and fourth time you hear it. By the end, every conservative bootlicking moron will be lining up to say “presidents should be allowed to have an uninterrupted span of 8 years of rule so as to enact the agenda we ‘voted’ for!”

      It’s predictable. I’m going to buy some guns and start hitting the range.

      • Merlin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I hear you and understand the precedent. But I don’t think it applies here. Yes, our institutions are weakened–but they still stand. This would never be passed into law as an amendment. Thus, they’d need a supreme court willing to engage in such an egregious miscarriage of justice that most would consider it to be treason.

        While I find the Robert’s court troubling, I don’t think they’re capable of such a thing.

        Let’s hope I’m right.

        • mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          The Supreme Court currently has a majority of batshit insane constitutional originalists.

          They are most definitely capable of doing this.

          They just have to divine some batshit insane constitutionally originalist argument that justifies it.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It could be that, it’s more likely that this never passes/or is ratified and is effectively a Benghazi or hunter Biden trope that plays well on Fox News.

        My bigger fear is that Trump just runs for a 3rd term anyways because who’d stop him? The supreme Court will vote 6:3 that their hands are tied any they can’t keep him off the ballot. And if he’s elected, they’ll rule 6:3 that “well, the Constitution says we can’t do this, but it’d go against the will of the people and would be hard to unwind so we won’t do anything”

    • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s the fascist version of all the pie-in-the-sky progressive stuff that gets introduced when they know they can’t get the votes. I wish more of them actually gave a shit about the American people as much as optics and pandering so they can keep sucking the megadonor teat.