How do we fix the Supreme Court decision?

Put people on the supreme court who will do the right thing.

Vote for Biden come November!!! Won’t fix everything, but will remove one disruption from the equation. If you pay attention, everything 45 is doing is what he accuses Biden of doing because that deflects the heat off of himself. He has already declared that he will be assassinating Pres Biden a well as Dr Jill when he goes back in office. He wants to off Liz Cheney as well. Personally, I don’t plan on being complicit in his murder plan!!! For the life of me, I can’t figure out what the USA ever did to him other than allow him to get rich while looking the other way.

^^Good luck with that.

@Blackwater_Park Replacing members of the court won’t be enough. You would then need to bring a case before the court for them to rule on. Not easy, but possible.
#Roe.

Sorry to be that guy, but there is no viable solution.
Just like people in the past had to accept that brutal reality, you all will accept this brutal reality.

Doesn’t feel good, does it?

Can’t be fixed but you can feel great once Democrats win and get the White House again this November. Trump and those who think he’ll actually win are delusional. Is this in Social? Yes. Their pathetic balls are cooked.

If you can load this Heather Cox Richardson talk, it points to what we can do as a people.

https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/videos/1007439607634452

I have to laugh at y’all who say it can’t be fixed. Of course it can. You have more power than you think. Roe is hard because people are divided on the issue, this last ruling is not so much the case.

@Blackwater_Park Tell us then – how does a Supreme Court ruling be fixed?

^^Congress, Senate, WH majority Dems.

Vote out every single mofo who supports the decision, put pressure on politicians, make calls etc etc. Vote vote vote… Enough people doing this over time and change is guaranteed. Politics is a consumer-driven enterprise. That last decision is detested by both the right and left. It’s easy to fix, just have to get people on the same team. That’s the hard part.

The recourse that exists within the Constitution is to amend the Constitution. Congress can pass an amendment narrowly defining protected, official acts, and the states can ratify it, and the courts won’t be able to say shit. Unless they figure out how to declare constitutional amendments unconstitutional, in which case you’ve got to start considering some “destructive of these ends” options.

If its legal now to give gifts to the Supreme Court Justices then… let the bidding process begin.

@Smashley The decision the SCOTUS just made was directly from the Constitution and you folks are lathered about it. But think about what you are suggesting: that every POTUS should be under the thundercloud of lawsuits for any and all decisions he/she makes. Again, that would open Barack Obama open to all sorts of lawsuits for using drones against American citizens. It could open Biden up to being arrested as a murderer for all the people that have been killed by illegal immigrants he allowed into and moved around in the country. The list is endless. And all it would take is for someone to bring a lawsuit against them really just because they don’t like them. It could break them after they are out of office or even while they are in office. That is what you are all screaming for.

Dred Scott was within the Constitution too, but a few people were lathered about it.

Let me guess: let’s goalpost yet again.

Yep. And the system worked. Scott got overturned. It might be that some place in the distant future, this decision gets overturned as well. Not likely, but maybe…if the left gets into power. This decision cited case after case where presidential immunity was claimed and was overruled.

The history of this issue goes all the way back in our history. Thomas Jefferson claimed immunity when his VP was under attack. Richard Nixon claimed immunity. Bill Clinton claimed immunity. And in all these cases it was overruled. The cases were looked at exactly as this SCOTUS decision dictated they needed to be looked at: did the action of the POTUS for which they are claiming immunity fall within the duties of their office?

Their decision is not what the crazy leftist media is saying. It isn’t blanket immunity for any and all actions. It isn’t blanket immunity for everything they’ve ever done in their lives. It isn’t blanket immunity for some crazy scenario where they get to kill someone and get away with it. I suggest you read the decision and see what they are saying and why they are saying it.

You’re not repealing the 2nd. Many will fight you on that including me

So why did the court weigh in this time? They could have skipped it, and left the law as it stands, but chose a convoluted workaround that will protect a man who tried to overthrow the government.

@Blackwater_Park – you can be wrong. I’m ok with that. You also don’t need a fucked up amendment like that to protect reasonable firearm ownership. I’d be ok with a sensible plan, instead of an insane one,

Nothing wrong with the 2nd but there are some things wrong with gun “culture”

@Smashley The SCOTUS deals with cases that make their way to them. Rarely do they take a case that comes directly to them. Usually it has to go through courts, appeals courts, district courts, and finally the SCOTUS. This case was no exception. They didn’t change any law or even any interpretation of law. This case was brought by Trump as his claim of immunity in the cases being brought against him. What the SCOTUS found was that the courts had not once considered if the actions he was involved with were part of his official duties. In other words the lower courts were trying to change the law and to overthrow the government. The SCOTUS didn’t weigh in on the issue of whether what Trump was accused of was or wasn’t part of his official duties. They refused to do so since none of the lower courts had bothered. They gave it back to those courts to do what they were supposed to do in the first place. That performance (from the lower courts) is what you get with a left-wing court…activist cowboy actions that don’t care about the law.

If people read SCOTUS opinions they may better understand what the court does and why. Reading responses here suggest a lot of confusion and getting info from mainstream press. That is always a mistake as far as I’m concerned.

@Blackwater_Park – “shall not be abridged” is just too far for gun ownership. People can, and do, argue and instate very unreasonable gun laws, and the culture flows out of it.

@seawulf575 – it’s an interpretation, and I hope you’re right. It seems like we just need another Dershowitz moment to argue that it is not possible for a President to not act in an official capacity because even their private acts must be to serve themselves, which is of vital importance to the nation, and thereby official.

It’s hard to imagine the Founding Fathers thinking it’s okay for a President to be able to do anything and remain unchecked by laws.

Obama did not use drones against American citizens @seawulf575!! Lol! Prove it!

@Dutchess_III – in the words of a former secretary of defense: that’s not entirely accurate.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens?redirect=targetedkillings

@Dutchess_III Here are some reports of it:

https://theworld.org/stories/2016/07/30/if-obama-apologized-1-civilian-drone-victim-every-day-it-would-take-him-3-years

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/obama-to-disclose-how-many-civilians-died-in-u-s-drone-attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki

I particularly liked the last one where the WH Press secretary blamed the father for not being responsible enough to keep his son out of the way of Obama’s drones.