Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[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:

 

[DaveXA]

The more I'm reading and learning about the immunity ruling, the less I'm liking the ruling. The President is now effectively immune fron both criminal and civil litigation. And the Court didn't lay out what specifically falls under non-official acts, and it doesn't really matter.

I will say this though, Biden could do some serious damage if he wanted to because he'd be effectively immune from prosecution. He could essentially stop the elections and declare himself dictator based on the ruling. Who's to say he can't do it. Congress has no recourse. Impeachment won't happen since Congress is completely divided and neither side has enough votes in the Senate to convict the president of anything.

We're screwed.

This here is a good recap of the decision.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Just because it didn't work out how Democrats hoped it would doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to remove a President despite all the ridiculous claims that they President is like a king now after the SCOTUS ruling.

If Trump killed his political rival, enough Republicans would vote to impeach him.

right all those suckups that lied and slithered and made themselves into trump toady just to become his vp or get his support are going to stand against him? right, they sacrificed their backbones on the altar of Trump and they are no useless toadies. trump has sucked all the spines and balls out of the GOP they are as powerful as a wet tissue.

 

[MT15]

Those instances show the President enjoyed functional immunity from 1789 to 2023. SCOTUS has now codifed that immunity thanks to Jack Smith's cockamamie and newly concocted theory designed to specifically prosecute Trump.

This is completely deranged. I mean like totally coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs insane.

There isn’t anything new in what Jack Smith is prosecuting Trump for, the only new thing is that a President has never in over 250 years ever done the stupid and criminal shirt that Trump did.

It’s complete gaslighting to pretend otherwise. You need help.


A case can be made that the corrupt 5 or 6 justices on the Supreme Court did tailor their immunity decision to specifically help Trump. That is a distinct possibility.

 

[MT15]

Just because it didn't work out how Democrats hoped it would

Name me a time it has EVER worked. Do you imagine that Trump’s times are the only ones?

 

[coldseat]

Just because it didn't work out how Democrats hoped it would doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to remove a President despite all the ridiculous claims that they President is like a king now after the SCOTUS ruling.

If Trump killed his political rival, enough Republicans would vote to impeach him.

You're about a gullible as they come. Susan Collins wants to have a conversation with you.

 

[Lapaz]

Just because it didn't work out how Democrats hoped it would doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to remove a President despite all the ridiculous claims that they President is like a king now after the SCOTUS ruling.

If Trump killed his political rival, enough Republicans would vote to impeach him.

He probably would do it like Putin, which is tagging them as a national security threat and then having them jailed in a place like Quantanamo. If he did have them killed, he would do it near the end of his 2nd term, when impeachment would be irrelevant. Regardless, if Republicans think it would hurt their chances of remaining in office, they would justify his actions, so they wouldn't impeach him. If they wouldn't impeach him for his inaction to stop the riots that threatened their lives and the transition of power on January 6th, then there is little basis to believe they would do it for anything. Even if he got impeached, the fear and damage it would create could not be undone, and his VP would take over. In addition, if he didn't violate or suspend the constitution to remain in office for a 3rd term, then he would hand pick his successor. It wouldn't surprise me if he were to declare martial law and suspend or indefinitely delay elections. He could then gin up some national threat to justify remaining in office.

 

[Optimus Prime]

A supreme court decision that overturned the “Chevron doctrine” could upend regulations on everything from tobacco to pharmaceuticals to surprise medical bills, experts told the Guardian.

The 40-year-old legal framework, the Chevron doctrine, once directed courts to defer to the expertise of federal agencies, such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

In a far-reaching decision, the court’s conservative supermajority held last week in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo and Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce that the reverse should apply, with courts having the final say over even highly technical regulations.

“This was a gut punch for health, safety and the environment in the US,” said Prof Lawrence O Gostin, an expert in health law and a professor at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute. “There’ll be no area where agencies act to protect the public’s health or safety or the environment that won’t be adversely affected by this ruling.”


Liberal Justice Elena Kagan predicted the decisionwould “jolt” the legal system by dispensing with a framework that had become part of the “warp and woof of modern government.”

Combined with a second, less high-profile ruling that expanded the time for people to sue agencies, experts said the end of the Chevron doctrine is certain to be felt in the everyday lives of Americans.

For instance, the tobacco industry may have an easier time challenging controversial regulations on vaping products; drug makers could face new uncertainties as they invest millions in new research and development; and it may be easier for doctors to argue against rules that prohibit sending patients surprise medical bills. In turn, agencies may divert funding from staff experts, such as scientists, to attorneys, who can defend their decisions.

At the same time, the court’s opinion was cheered by big business and Republican allies. Senator Mitch McConnell said the decision “leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself”, CNBC reported.……

Chevron doctrine ruling a ‘gut-punch’ for US health and environment – experts

Decision that overturned convention of deference to federal agencies could upend regulations on tobacco, drugs and medical bills

www.theguardian.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[B4YOU]

Just because it didn't work out how Democrats hoped it would doesn't negate the fact that there is a system in place to remove a President despite all the ridiculous claims that they President is like a king now after the SCOTUS ruling.

If Trump killed his political rival, enough Republicans would vote to impeach him.

The fact that you had to use "enough" shows you know not all Republicans would vote to impeach Trump if he committed murder. It's a party and group of Americans putting the ends before the means that leads to fascism.

 

[UriUT]

The more I'm reading and learning about the immunity ruling, the less I'm liking the ruling. The President is now effectively immune fron both criminal and civil litigation. And the Court didn't lay out what specifically falls under non-official acts, and it doesn't really matter.

I will say this though, Biden could do some serious damage if he wanted to because he'd be effectively immune from prosecution. He could essentially stop the elections and declare himself dictator based on the ruling. Who's to say he can't do it. Congress has no recourse. Impeachment won't happen since Congress is completely divided and neither side has enough votes in the Senate to convict the president of anything.

We're screwed.

This here is a good recap of the decision.

She does a good breakdown on how this SC is conjuring magic out of thin air in a Machiavellian way.

The 'Bloodless Coup' Has Started...with the Court

How the Supreme Court pulled a Jedi mind trick to elect and protect Trump.

asharangappa.substack.com

What you might notice if you follow the lines above carefully is that the question of motive — the reason that an action was taken — doesn’t even enter the equation until after the determination of whether the actions was official or unofficial has been made. Indeed, the Court explicitly states that “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”

This is an astonishing statement, because it effectively means that it does not matter if a President uses the official levers of power with corrupt intent, for personal gain, or as retribution. In other words, the Court engages a sleight of hand where a critical distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct — the heart of criminal law, which rests on whether a person acted with a specific state of mind, or mens rea — ceases to exist when it comes to the President. Once this distinction is erased, the office of the presidency is basically a get out of jail free card, enabling the President to do pretty much anything that could plausibly be characterized as “official.”

In other words, the Court has created immunity for the one category of actions where it actually matters — unlawful official acts — everything else that is left either would have never been prosecuted anyway or was always fair game.

She goes further. It's worth a read. Even the possibility that Nixon would not have resigned had this decision was made prior to Watergate.

My analogy would be with killing in common law. As a society, we decide punishment of killings based on motives and circumstances. Did one kill in self defense? Was it out of emotional distress? Accidental? Anger? Vengeful? Hateful? Manslaughter, 1st degree, 2nd degree, willful negligence, etc. So this court basically ruled all killings are murder. Or, more apt, every killing is in self-defense. Because the law cannot use motives or intent, all official acts are now immune. Such BS.