Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (5 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:

 

[MT15]

Yep, I think we need to pivot away from the law. It has failed us.

 

[MT15]

Honestly, if Biden did this, that ruling would be changed pretty quickly. Or clarified to suddenly make Biden’s actions illegal.

 

[Incumbent]

He evidently expressed this unironically.

Completely in keeping with what is at the core of their beliefs; that the left should have no standing or rights. That might still somehow sound benign until you consider the intensifying rhetoric from elected Republican officials that they want to get rid of us.

The worst conclusion anybody can convince themselves to believe is that something like that could never happen here.

 

[MT15]

Completely in keeping with what is at the core of their beliefs; that the left should have no standing or rights. That might still somehow sound benign until you consider the intensifying rhetoric from elected Republican officials that they want to get rid of us.

The worst conclusion anybody can convince themselves to believe is that something like that could never happen here.

I saw a tragic post on Twitter from a former Iranian who said his parents lived in Iran during the time the Shah fell and the Mullahs took over. He said it happened so fast, it made their heads spin. Every day it seemed like something they thought could never happen, just happened. Just like that.

I sure hope we have some leaders somewhere who can stop this here. But it seems that the courts have completely failed us now.

 

[Lapaz]

Only 2 of those occurred on US soil. The civil war was a stain on our country. If part of the country wanted to sucede today, it would be preferable to allow it rather than vast destruction and death. However, now a president is more likely to declare war.

The president should’ve faced prosecution for the internment camps, but now can’t.

I have no problem with presidents having qualified immunity for the nukes and drone attacks as official acts. They were very defensible in the goal of protecting America. The nukes saved many lives, as did the drone strikes on terrorists. The attacks on sovereign nations is a mixed bag. Arguably presidents should’ve been prosecuted for some, or at least be forced to defend their rationales. Now presidents can do as they wish with impunity. Is your re-post a defense of the immunity ruling?

 

[Incumbent]

I saw a tragic post on Twitter from a former Iranian who said his parents lived in Iran during the time the Shah fell and the Mullahs took over. He said it happened so fast, it made their heads spin. Every day it seemed like something they thought could never happen, just happened. Just like that.

I sure hope we have some leaders somewhere who can stop this here. But it seems that the courts have completely failed us now.

To that point.



I’ll keep saying it; it can’t be overstated how dire this is.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm sure you're correct that immunity was there before for official acts, but was presumptive immunity there for unofficial acts? In addition, preventing motive review, and the use of official acts to build cases for apparent criminal acts wasn't available to Nixon. It seems this ruling has gutted protections against a rogue president. It was a travesty that Nixon didn't get tried, because I think that Supreme Court would've left the guardrails in place.

There is no support in the decision for the idea that unofficial acts have a presumption of immunity.

 

[superchuck500]

Honestly, if Biden did this, that ruling would be changed pretty quickly. Or clarified to suddenly make Biden’s actions illegal.

There's never been any prohibition on Biden doing that. It's not illegal for the president to order the IRS to critically examine the tax filings of the Supreme Court justices.

 

[superchuck500]

To that point.



I’ll keep saying it; it can’t be overstated how dire this is.

The secessionists/Confederates literally believed the same thing in 1861.

There, the secessionists were rebelling against a federal government that was preparing to outlaw the foundation of their economy.

What are the Project 2025 people rebelling against? Is there any reason to think they will be more successful than their 19th century counterparts?

 

[Incumbent]

The secessionists/Confederates literally believed the same thing in 1861.

There, the secessionists were rebelling against a federal government that was preparing to outlaw the foundation of their economy.

What are the Project 2025 people rebelling against? Is there any reason to think they will be more successful than their 19th century counterparts?

Backed by the White House, state governments, and a contingent of congress, is there an abundance of certainty they won’t cause a lot of suffering?

Will they succeed shouldn’t ignore how much damage can they do trying.

 

[MT15]

Yeah, nobody wins if we have a new civil war. Not really.

 

[MT15]

There's never been any prohibition on Biden doing that. It's not illegal for the president to order the IRS to critically examine the tax filings of the Supreme Court justices.

Good, I certainly hope he does it.

 

[superchuck500]

Good, I certainly hope he does it.

He’s not that kind of president.

The democrats need their Abe Lincoln (and I don’t say that ironically).

 

[superchuck500]

Backed by the White House, state governments, and a contingent of congress, is there an abundance of certainty they won’t cause a lot of suffering?

Will they succeed shouldn’t ignore how much damage can they do trying.

To be clear, I wasn’t asking those questions with the belief the answer was that it would be the same.

I’m just not exactly sure what they think they’re going to win - certainly when it comes to establishing some kind of Christian theocracy, they’re not going to win.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Secretary Cohen relayed a conversation with Trump, and had Trump correctly using “whom”. Various people pointed out that Trump would never be able to correctly use the word. Here is the conversation:

Thanks.

 

[LA - L.A.]

This is such a dangerous thing to do. If the wrong person takes office, you could have a disaster on your hands....

In regards to this, a Trump administration is the worst possible hands and a Democratic administration is much, much better hands for the next four years to fix this crap and get back on track. Democrats aren't perfect and it doesn't have to be the Democrats forever, but it definitely has to be whichever Democratic administration for the next four years to get this shirt sorted.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The news media has to rise to this moment. The majority of people in this country would realize how crazy Trump sounds if the news media will call attention to it. I’m baffled why they don’t.

Unfortunately, ever since news starting being profit motivated, that's their most important goal. The only way a news media outlet is going call attention to this is if they perceive it as a threat to future profits. So far, it doesn't seem like enough of them see it as a threat to future profits. Hopefully, they'll start seeing it that way very soon.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I respectfully disagree that the cited language vests the president with authority to assassinate a political rival.

If the president says I"m killing my political rival, yeah that wouldn't fly.

But what if the president says, that person over there is an imminent national security threat and must be neutralized, so neutralize him? That has been done as an official act and legal precedent says the president has the authority to conduct that official act.

The ruling says that intentions can not be considered in deciding if it's an official act and violation of a law does not make something not an official act.

If you were president, then of course you wouldn't do this because you know it's wrong. But presidents have done this and they have been supported by the courts as having this authority.

So, even though you know and I know that the president was really just killing a political rival, the ruling says that the courts can not take the intention in to consideration. As long as what the president does looks like an official act that presidents have, then the president has immunity for that official act, regardless of actual intention or the illegal nature of what they did.

You're a good person who operates in good faith. I think you are making the same mistake that I often make and will make in the future. Because we are good guys who operate in good faith, our natural assumption is so is everyone else, especially someone who has been appointed to the Supreme Court. I also think because you are in the legal profession and have a lot of respect and trust in it, that may make it even harder for you to even consider that Supreme Court justices might be mostly corrupt and acting in bad faith. Something like that could create a lot of professional and personal doubt.

I hope you are correct, but I don't think you are. I think you're analysis is built on the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith and I think there's years of reasonable evidence that creates reasonable and serious doubts that they actually are acting in good faith.