The Supreme Court decision that might DESTROY the country

#Trump #Biden #2024 #TrumpvsBiden #politics #economics #JoeBiden #DonaldTrump #Maga #Supreme Court #Court #TrumpvUS #TrumpvsUS #TrumpvUSA #TrumpvsUSA #immunity

[rob]

“In response to this direct threat to the Republic, meesa propose that the Senate give immediately emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor."

[spookylilghost]

The grand wizard council have declared that, according to the ancient magical scribe, the god king is above all human law. All hail the god king! Glory to the grand wizards!

[biggerdoofus]

I think part of the issue with the rulings in this session, with the immunity decision being the worst example of this, is that the Chief Justice has always tried to keep the actions of the Supreme Court to a minimum to respect the fact that the Justices are life-appointed unelected judges. This is sometimes a good idea, and it's also what his predecessor preferred. Unfortunately, sometimes the amount that needs to be declared at once is more than what he would prefer.

Regarding the decision itself, I think the precedents he relied on are based on the law of the constitution being above the law of congress (including criminal law), which I like. However, Trump is basically showing that the intended check that is supposed to make that okay, the power of impeachment, doesn't work if congress is choosing to be the president's puppets. The proper solution on a lot of things, as viewed by Chief Justice Roberts, is congress doing its job.

[TheStroupe]

I think it’s a fascinating point that the president can essentially avoid any time they lose in court simply by directing whatever agency to just do whatever they direct them to do.

What place does the any lawsuit against the administration have now? If they can just ignore the outcome.

[secondengineer]

Hey, Eb. From your 3Wonks discussion about the Supreme Court a while back, one idea that was mentioned was the "Game Theory" idea of threatening the Supreme Court with Court Packing or other things unless they enact certain Court reforms.

Do you think Biden could essentially do that now, but instead of threatening Court Packing, threaten the indefinite detention, or [worse] of Supreme Court Justices or even of Trump?

One might worry it could set a bad precedent, but wouldn't reneging on the immunity decision nip any precedent in the bud? By using the act to remove the President's immunity, it would be prevent any President in the future from ever doing it again.

I feel like a move like that would be on par with George Washington stepping down after two terms. It would certainly belong in the history books

[PixelPenguin]

Spineless. Imagine if this decision was about a crime made by Obama: "nah lmao, you're going to jail"

[seriouslyshortofnormal]

"Why shouldn't the president fear..."
That's what the impeachment process is for.

[garrettgutierrez]

I get what you are saying about the practical reality that there just isn't precedent for people suing the president with his motives being a justification, but SCOTUS doesn't have the luxury of just thinking about the past, they have to think of the future. They have to think how can the carve outs to immunity be abused, because if the one carve out is "bad motives" then every single indictment against presidents from now on will appeal to motivations. The court has to contend with the reality that a sort of precedential rubicon may have been passed here in the US, and that criminal prosecutions against former presidents may have entered into the realm of a political tool. Immunity from abuses of the legal system for the president have to be established, even if they aren't likely, because in the future they may not be so rare.

Also the court doesn't rule that official acts are immune, just that they are presumptively immune. All the court has to do to circumvent that immunity is to establish that the precedent they are setting cannot be abused to pose a danger to the authority and function of the president. Basically, the appeals/district courts just need to do their homework. They didn't. They just assumed no immunity existed, which is nonsensical.

[seriouslyshortofnormal]

I've been pretty surprised at just how the Court has been ruling and the justices have been voting: i would argue that the Supreme Court isn't as politicized as both sides of the aisle argue based on the rulings over the last couple of years.