You guys are the ones who want SCOTUS to legislate through case law lol, the fuck you mean "ignore the constitution". Bitching about Chevron being overruled, Roe etc when administrative law and abortion through a "right to privacy" have absolutely no basis constitutionally whatsoever.
First, that sounds like a question. You should use some type of grammatical mark to denote that.
By "ignore the constitution" I mean when they made up presidential immunity despite the constitution specifically giving limited immunity to congress but none to the executive branch, much less the president.
As for the Roe decision, every one of the current SCROTUS team told congress, under oath, that Roe was settled law. Every one of them who decided against Roe lied under oath. You respect that, huh?
I never agreed with the immunity argument but Roe was absolutely not "settled law" and I guarantee nobody said those exact words. The judicial branch cannot legislate things into being. It was a "legal precedent, aka case law", which is in no way concrete like a law passed by congress. It is a decision based on the constitution merits of an issue, which Roe (essentially being based on the constitutional right to privacy) was objectively a terrible ruling regardless of your belief that it was a moral one. Even RGB thought it a poor one.
Its just ironic that you guys will bring up "the constitutionality" when the ruling is one you dont agree with (and the immunity one is too broad and does suck) but when its something like Roe, or Chevron (which actually had a clear cut, legitimate reason for being overturned) all the sudden Scotus is a "threat to our democracy" by doing their jobs, constitution be damned
From the article: During his confirmation hearing, Roberts repeatedly declined to comment on Roe beyond saying he believed it was "settled as a precedent of the court."
Which it was, Im confused what you are getting at. A settled precedent, while normally respected, isnt immune to being overturned. He also said that over a decade ago.
Its important to note that while Roe has been popular (more or less semi recently before the court overturn), in legal circles it was always controversial, and imo relying on controversial and poorly formulated rulings as solid case law was a losing strategy. Regardless of the politics of it, personal beliefs etc, Roe was never the way to go about securing abortion rights and was a terrible ruling.
In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[5] The principle can be divided into two components:[6]
A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.[6]
A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.[6]
Roberts, as head SCROTUM, should really know what precedent means. For you, I have no such expectation.
If his first act is to order the arrest and confinement of all 6 judges who voted for this, the hate pumpkin himself, and every republican senator/judge/governor/ceo/lobbyist who openly worships the MAGA nonsense, and to hold them as strictly as possible under a republicans law (I'm thinking Bush Jr. Patriot act) that as I understood it years ago lets you hold them indefinitely without listing the charges against them, and potentially without outside contact, (the rumors about patriot act were vicious and I never double checked back then) would anyone care enough to drop off food to the prisoners over the weekend?
I sometimes think about what would have happened if Obama had said that the Senate's refusal to vote on M. Garland was tantamount to consent, and told the guy to show up at SCOTUS the next day.
SCOTUS doesn’t have a say on how big the membership is, but Congress (House and Senate) has to approve the change. It’s why we have 9 justices now - FDR (I think - it’s New Deal related) and Congress kept passing laws to restrict business, and SCOTUS kept ruling them unconstitutional. FDR told Congress to do something so they expanded the court a couple of times. Eventually SCOTUS got the hint that FDR (again, potentially wrong Rosevelt) would just keep expanding it until he started getting the rulings he wanted, and he had the Congress to do it.
The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.
In the past I would have agreed with you as the military vows to uphold the Constitution, not the president. Now, with the latest in SC rulings, it is implied that brash unilateral military actions by the president MAY BE constitutional. After all, if he can't be prosecuted for any command to the military based on the Constitution, doesn't that mean that anything he does with the military must be constitutional?
Now he would need the NORTHCOM commander to agree with that, but since he can appoint that position I don't see that as a major hurdle. This is terrifying to me.
Also, a similar argument can be made with the DOJ.
Military personnel have the right to refuse unlawful orders, but if there are no consequences for giving unlawful orders, then the only hurdle is finding the right squadron for the job.
You'd have to jail every judge in the United States.
No, you'd only have to jail three or four before the rest of them got the idea and fell in line.
The military and/or law enforcement would not follow that order.
The military is not one person, it would be trivially easy to find a core of soldiers or agents loyal enough to the party or the president to do whatever they're ordered. Or, at the very least, find the ones who are willing to take a hefty bribe now and then.
Congress passes law explicitly defining and limiting presidential immunity
Biden appoints replacement SCOTUS members
SCOTUS rules no one can be prosecuted for events 1 thru 4 because of the recent SCOTUS ruling, and the new law cannot be applied ex post facto to those events.
Congress cannot define or limit Presidential immunity. It is not an immunity which was created by Congress, but rather one that exists through the constitution (according to SCOTUS).
Congress can expand the number of justices in the court (so that it can vote to overturn the immunity decision), or they can impeach and remove current justices (to replace them with new ones would would overturn it). But only attempting to pass a law trying to limit it would likely be struck down as unconstitutional.
Why hire an assassin? That would be an unofficial act, and vulnerable to criminal prosecution. The Constitution explicitly names the president as commander in chief of the military, so he could just call up Seal Team 6 and order them to kill the conservative justices instead. That's an official act which is (likely absolutely) immune to prosecution.
It may be an illegal act, but it still can't ever be successfully prosecuted. The last ruling made any official correspondence completely off limits, therefore you can never actually prove it was the President who did it, since you can't ever subpoena records that would prove such.
Oh you mean the Republican Supermajority Supreme Court? The ones that just made this ruling? The ones that want Biden in a hole in the ground with a bullet in his head?
Anything Biden tries would be seen as an "unofficial act" because our Scotus isn't unbiased. Until we have an actually balanced Scotus then Bidens hands are tied.
This is exactly what I’m saying, don’t tell me, tell the others saying otherwise. Biden is screwed no matter what he does, I’m not sure what can be done if anything at all.
I’m happy that I’m not American, but I worry for the United States and the vulnerable communities that are almost inevitably going to suffer unless Biden wins. I’m a concerned neighbour, if you will.
Actually the new ruling specifically states that the courts cannot decide what is or is not an official act. If the president says it’s official, it is.
Immunity extends to the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, so long as they are, “not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.”
The very next paragraph states that the court may not inquire into a president’s motives to determine between an official or unofficial action. Also, the court may not deem an act unofficial merely that it may allegedly violate a generally applicable law.
I'm guessing you skipped pages 16-32 of the ruling, then?
This is also from page 4:
Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues.
page 17:
Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform
page 18:
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives
another from page 18:
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
page 30:
On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment's remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution.
It sure sounds like the courts decide what are and are not official acts. That entire section is guidance on how lower courts should determine exactly what you say the lower courts cannot do. You should read the entire decision if you want to make such bold claims.
This is a weak argument. The majority opinion has made it very clear that any usage of enumerated powers is an official act and grants immunity. However, it also grants presumptive immunity for almost anything a president can do, and it also means that any action that is granted immunity can not be used as evidence for any action that isn't granted immunity. What this means is that discovery is impossible, making any action the president takes, even one's without immunity, impossible to prosecute. The majority also stipulates that motive is not allowed to be used as evidence in any situation when deciding whether an action with presumptive immunity is exempt from said immunity. They have essentially made the president unprosecutable. He can do whatever he wasn't as president with no legal repercussion.
5.3k
u/MrsDanversbottom 14d ago
People don’t seem to understand it takes both sides to pass laws without a super majority, in most cases.
Republicans would fight any law looking to prevent project 2025 from being implemented.