• notabotEnglish
      11·
      6 days ago

      Yes, they could (should) change how they enforce those laws, but that doesn’t decriminalize it. He’s also bound by the constitution (article 2 section 3) which states ‘he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’, which probably leaves him some room for interpretation, but, theoretically at least, he can’t just ignore the laws that exist. What’s needed is actual decriminalization, which is the purview of the legislative branch, for which they need the numbers in congress.

        • notabotEnglish
          11·
          6 days ago

          At a guess, impeachment. Only, rather than the half baked previous attempt, it’ll be carried by representatives from both sides as a blatant breach of the rules. From the republicans because he’s a dem and from the dems because they keep trying to play fair.

          • Sickos [they/them, it/its]@hexbear.netEnglish
            5·
            6 days ago

            Ok so you can acknowledge that impeachment has already been tried and failed. If the consequences for doing a thing are already applied, there are no consequences for doing a thing.

            • notabotEnglish
              1·
              5 days ago

              The difference is, I don’t think it would fail in the scenario you put forward, so there would be a consequence. Now if we assume it’s biden, and he’s unlikely to see out another term even if elected, maybe the risk/reward ration swings enough to make it a realistic possibility, but in general I suspect a president assassinating multiple supreme court justices would lead to them being impeached successfully in short order.