Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (3 Viewers)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[SaintRob]

They were actually terrorists though. If you're a citizen in another country planning to attack the US, you're a valid target. I don't think it opens any other doors though. What makes you think that?

Specifically, this part of the ruling:

According to the ruling, “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” Roberts wrote. “Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

Potential future president's quote, "I consider John Doe an existential threat to our democracy and as such, a domestic terrorist! I have therefore ordered his execution via drone strike!"

 

[zztop]

Good luck AOC, hope you somehow succeed

 

[coldseat]

I truly believe our country is terminally lost beyond repair. The right wing MAGA slippery slope has led us into an abyss we will not be able to ever recover from. If Trump wins in November, that seals the deal.

And Americans think things are bad now if you go by the polls .... . Best buckle up buttercups.

 

[Bayouboy]

I truly believe our country is terminally lost beyond repair. The right wing MAGA slippery slope has led us into and abyss we will not be able to ever recover from. If Trump wins in November, that seals the deal.

And Americans think things are bad now if you go by the polls .... . Best buckle up buttercups.

Absolutely

 

[MT15]

Pretty sure that wouldn't be considered an official act, but I have no idea anymore.

What I am hearing, and just my feeble attempt to understand, this ruling says a couple really horrible things. Please correct me if I am in error here.

1. Trump’s motives cannot be considered in deciding whether an act is official or not.
2. Trump’s discussion with any DOJ official is declared immune. Cannot be used, and cannot be charged even if criminal.
3. Trump could take money for pardons - pardons are always official acts, so no laws exist about them any longer.

The majority opinion states that lower DOJ officials would not be immune in this manner, but there is nothing to stop the President from pardoning anyone he directs to break the law for him.

This is what is being said - I hope this is wrong, because it seems horrible.

 

[zztop]

I truly believe our country is terminally lost beyond repair. The right wing MAGA slippery slope has led us into an abyss we will not be able to ever recover from. If Trump wins in November, that seals the deal.

And Americans think things are bad now if you go by the polls .... . Best buckle up buttercups.

Yeah, I'm at the stage of "we're forked". Trump will get away with it, get re-elected, he becomes untouchable. RvW destroyed, Chevron doctrine is destroyed, project 2525 launches. No coming back from that.

 

[coldseat]

What I am hearing, and just my feeble attempt to understand, this ruling says a couple really horrible things. Please correct me if I am in error here.

1. Trump’s motives cannot be considered in deciding whether an act is official or not.
2. Trump’s discussion with any DOJ official is declared immune. Cannot be used, and cannot be charged even if criminal.
3. Trump could take money for pardons - pardons are always official acts, so no laws exist about them any longer.

The majority opinion states that lower DOJ officials would not be immune in this manner, but there is nothing to stop the President from pardoning anyone he directs to break the law for him.

This is what is being said - I hope this is wrong, because it seems horrible.

Nope, it's not wrong. They succeeded in turning the president into a King by another name. A truly horrific decision that no justice in a democratic system of governance should have ever made. It's disgusting and a just more evidence that those right wing justice are only their to advance extremist ideology and contempt for democratic principles.

Let no one in any place in America ever utter again that "no man is above the law." Indeed, Trump and Republican presidents are above the law. If a Democratic president gets in trouble, those protections will be rescinded temporarily.

 

[Lapaz]

They were actually terrorists though. If you're a citizen in another country planning to attack the US, you're a valid target. I don't think it opens any other doors though. What makes you think that?

It is within the President's power to designate a threat, because it is the executive branch intel agencies that designate terrorists, and he can overrule whatever they say. The ruling said his motives can not be questioned, so according to the ruling, if he deems an American citizen a terrorist, then he can have them killed.

 

[zztop]

It is within the President's power to designate a threat, because it is the executive branch intel agencies that designate terrorists, and he can overrule whatever they say. The ruling said his motives can not be questioned, so according to the ruling, if he deems an American citizen a terrorist, then he can have them killed.

hmm maybe time to call federalist society judges terrorists then

 

[Lapaz]

hmm maybe time to call federalist society judges terrorists then

At this point, it seems Biden can start designating whoever he wants, including Supreme Court justices, as terrorists, and order them killed. I'm sure it would lead to an impeachment, but he could do it, and couldn't be prosecuted. Kamala would take over as the president. Of course, if Biden did that, he would probably cause Kamala to lose and Trump would start his vengeance, in which case all of Trump's opponents better move to another country, including the liberal justices, but Trump could still have them killed. I suppose the SS would attempt to protect Biden and Kamala, but that would be a short lived battle against our military.

 

[DaveXA]

It is within the President's power to designate a threat, because it is the executive branch intel agencies that designate terrorists, and he can overrule whatever they say. The ruling said his motives can not be questioned, so according to the ruling, if he deems an American citizen a terrorist, then he can have them killed.

I would say Congress needs to step in and clarify or change the law. But considering the control of the Capitol is split, doubt anything happens. For the purposes of designating a threat, I just hope that's the extent of it, but like you said, if the President does push beyond those boundaries, we're already forked anyway.

 

[Sendai]

Except that is entirely contrary to why we have the executive/regulatory system in the first place. The legislative process is very slow and when it is highly partisan, like it has been recently, it is generally snarled into basic ineffectiveness.

The current Congress has passed 65 bills since January 3, 2023. The average number in a two year term is about 350 to 400. This Congress and any in a similar environment will not "create legislation if Congress agrees with the agency." It's beyond silly to even say that's a reasonable concept.

Completely difficult and a recipe for gumming up the federal government - which was entirely the purpose, let's be clear about that.

Yeah, agencies running roughshod with impunity is a good way to deal with the ineptitude of congress.

Eliminating Chevron now lets lower federal courts have the flexibility to deal with faulty or onerous agency regulations. The case at hand could have been dealt with simply, with a judge saying you can have monitors on boats but the boats aren’t paying for them. A little pragmatism. Chevron was too much of a restriction.

The agencies and Congress will figure it out.

 

[MT15]

From what I read the majority opinion treated the extreme scenarios that the dissent quoted as some sort of alarmist fantasy. Then Trump posts this:

At this point they don’t get the benefit of the doubt. They’re pushing for a fascist takeover of America. I hope Biden is paying attention and can take action now that he has broader powers.

 

[MT15]

If I’m Biden, the first thing I do, and I’m not even joking - is have the IRS audit Alito and Thomas. Followed by a complete disclosure of all tax issues. You just know they’ve been cheating about disclosing those trips and that motorhome as income. Make it one of those horrific audits that Trump ordered for Comey and the other guy.

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah, agencies running roughshod with impunity is a good way to deal with the ineptitude of congress.

Eliminating Chevron now lets lower federal courts have the flexibility to deal with faulty or onerous agency regulations. The case at hand could have been dealt with simply, with a judge saying you can have monitors on boats but the boats aren’t paying for them. A little pragmatism. Chevron was too much of a restriction.

The agencies and Congress will figure it out.

Man, you guys can't make up your mind. You want smaller, less powerful government, but, you want more legislation and government involvement when it suits you? Lol.

 

[FullMonte]

If I’m Biden, the first thing I do, and I’m not even joking - is have the IRS audit Alito and Thomas. Followed by a complete disclosure of all tax issues. You just know they’ve been cheating about disclosing those trips and that motorhome as income. Make it one of those horrific audits that Trump ordered for Comey and the other guy.

First thing I'm doing (like, before I go to bed tonight), is issuing an order declaring all of the properties that Trump has golf courses on as protected federal wildlife refuges, and seizing them via imminent domain, and reimbursing the current owner at an amount of $50 per property.

That kind of declaration is an official act, right?

 

[fooferdoggie]

So did they do way with the impeachment clause?