I just really, honestly want to know what the freak out is about. I've been to several leftist websites and can't get anything substantive.

I've had to listen to my Glenn Beck-ite side of the family talk about Agenda 21 for ten years now, and now it looks like I have to listen to my Leftoid side of the family do the same thing with PJ25.

I've never read anything from the Heritage Foundation and I'm not going to start now. I just figured with so many people freaking out, someone could articulate a good reason.

Of course not. Please enlighten me.

Honest question; what's so bad about it? Every time I've tried to listen with an open mind about why it's so fascist, I get told that it 1) seeks to dismantle the administrative state 2) restrict immigration and 3) make federal employees firable.

What's the big boogyman that I'm missing?

This is the copypasta that the hivemind has been plastering all over Reddit the last 24 hours or so as some sort of gotcha. Literally none of them have been able to figure out that this clause is about impeachment, and literally says that impeachment removes immunity. They may not be able to read well or something idk.

Is project 2025 in the room with us now?

I don't think they actually believe this stuff, they just hate not getting their way and they're ok with constantly lying.

It's always existed for ever President. It's just never needed a ruling since Trump is the first President to have lawfare used against him.

"Ah yes, hello fellow Conservatives. I too am much love fascism."

Yeah, it's really bad. The top comments on most of the news subs about it are all asking Biden to either drone strike or have the military detain Scotus. Over a pretty predictable immunity ruling.

Sotomayor's word vomit dissent about Seal Team 6 didn't help either. Next time she should try to throw in a legal citation or two instead of just writing like she was making a post on r/politics.

You're getting downvoted by the brigade, but you're right; ordering political assassinations or performing a domestic coup isn't an official presidential duty under our Constitution. This isn't hard to understand.

The amount of people calling for Biden to assassinate Trump, SCOTUS, and the Gop leadership is a bit... disturbing.

I mean its disturbing that they would be good with a knight of the long knives against their political enemies, but also that that they don't understand that this ruling is basically the status quo for how governmental immunity has always worked.

"Ensure" how? A Gop President would be thrilled if California seceeded and took its electoral votes with it. If a red state seceeded who's gonna spend the human lives to bring them back? It took 600k combat deaths last time, do you think the "door dash is a human right" generation is going to endure that now?

I graduated from law school in 2020. Professors talked about Chevron and Roe like they were patron saints or something. Never thought I'd see an America where they were toast. Man I wish I were there now to see the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

She unwitingly became the patron saint of unborn children. Giving her life so that millions may live.

Maybe they can learn to code.

I kept thinking that this is elder abuse.

Tacitly admits the definition is related to biology. They can't be consistent even when they refuse to answer.

"Direct DOJ to prosecute political opponents" is some master tier gaslighting.

No, that was last week. This is flipsy week.

Don't you know that allowing the people with some of the highest suicide rates into a profession with high suicide rates is compassion?

Cool. But we should make the people and organizations actually responsible for preserving slavery pay first. So as soon as the coffers of the Democratic Party are plundered we can talk about the rest of us.

I'll take the downvotes, but there's no long term fix to SSI. It's always been a Ponzi scheme that requires explosive population growth to sustain.

More than national defense? Really Janet?

To build on what you're saying, The exact phrase is in Article II Section 8 and says "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy."

Navy was supposed to be permanant, and armies raised temporarily for a period of two years. The idea being that a standing Navy isn't really a threat to liberty, but standing armies traditionally have been.

Of course Congress bypasses this today by simply re-authorizing the money for a standing Army over and over via the perpetual NDAA's.