Under that system there would be no Supreme Court, only a national pool of Circuit Court judges with no higher court to hear appeals. The Supreme Court is supposed to be composed of the country’s finest legal minds, the only judges who can resolve the most difficult and important legal questions. Of course the Republicans have debased it by appointing right wing hacks, but the Supreme Court still functions as the ultimate arbiter of questions of law.
4 Likes
approximately three years later than he should have.
4 Likes
The Supreme Court had 6 judges when it started up in 1789, and the country had a population of around three million people. Today, if you had 600 judges, you’d have the same proportion of the population. I know it isn’t that simple, but it does put the single-digit number into perspective.
edit: number tyop.
6 Likes
I’m not saying you’re making it up. I am going to say that you are misunderstanding the ruling. Here’s what the Court said:
Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
[emphasis mine]
What they did not do was provide an exhaustive list of what is “within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Nor did they decide whether the acts in the prosecution in question fell within that sphere. They kicked it back to the lower court to answer that question. Once the lower court answers it, whichever side that goes against is going to appeal, and that specific question is going to end up back at SCOTUS. Furthermore, they didn’t give much guidance at all for official acts which fall outside the “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” So whether an official act in that category is entitled to immunity is going to also have to be adjudicated, and will also end up back at SCOTUS, on a case by case basis. They absolutely made themselves the final arbiter of whether a President can be prosecuted for certain acts. And if you think they would just let Biden get away with doing something they don’t like, consistent with this ruling, then you are still assuming this Court is acting in good faith, and why the fuck would you think that?
12 Likes
But when they clearly violate their own decision, they can be ignored. It’s not like they have an enforcement arm. They don’t have hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats. They don’t have an army.
We saw the weakness of Congress on Jan6th, with no direct command of an armed response. SCOTUS has even less.
5 Likes
At that point (and arguably, at this point) we are no longer a nation of laws, but of bigger armies. I know that might be where we are headed, but I am not ready to concede that just yet.
8 Likes
I don’t quite see it as that step too far. The SCOTUS majority clearly felt they could make the immunity ruling because Biden wouldn’t use it. Because they have no way to force him not to if he did. I’m suggesting he call their bluff, only so much as to repair the damage.
6 Likes
The last 10 years had made something abundantly clear. Nations function based on people respecting the same norms. As all a law really is, is a written out norm with an enforcement behind it when not followed. A law by itself doesn’t do anything. It’s that people are willing to follow the law. Along with that the relative few that do not are dealt with after the fact.
We’ve had a group steadily advocating that norms mean nothing. For that matter, that most laws mean nothing to them. Combined with what feels like an excruciatingly slow enforcement of the laws being ignored. Combined with a media that sanitizes this and acts as if it is all normal.
If this was a highway, and 30% of the cars on the road just ignored all the rules, drove any direction at any speed in any lane, the highway would cease to function. Nothing about highway laws forces this not to happen. It’s the cultural norm that people follow those rules and the few that do not are discouraged after the fact.
If we extend out this trajectory and all norms and rules become useless. We’ll up in a giant pile of catastrophe. That seems to be the plan of an entire political party.
7 Likes
I don’t think the Republicans want to destroy the Law. They want Democrats and everyone who is unfairly discriminated against by their corrupt courts to accept the results because it’s the legally made (by them) Law, because Americans are generally more or less law-abiding. Of course this will break down at some point.
As @danimagoo has explained, there is no bluff to be called. The Supreme Court still gets to decide, case by case, whether immunity applies to an official act. If Biden tries to take advantage of presumptive immunity, they can rule that it does not apply to whatever he is doing.
4 Likes
And when Biden says “No, it does,” what then?
Seriously, are you saying the SCOTUS has committed a coup and become absolute rulers of America with no recourse whatsoever?
2 Likes
I’ve read actual lawyers make that argument.
4 Likes
But it’s a bad argument, because the SCOTUS has no power to enforce its will.
Their authority depends fully on the Rule of Law being a thing, of the Congress and the Executive and the lower courts recognizing them as legitimate. If they push things too far, that will happen, and suddenly they are six plus three people in robes that the rest of the government ignores.
If they push it, they will lose. I mean, in such a scenario, everybody loses… but the SCOTUS will lose in particular.
4 Likes
Wake me up when there are actual consequences, and not just lip service.
“I’d love to wanna help you Flanders, but…”
1 Like
This. There has to be a line where any particular branch of government crosses from legitimate to illegitimate. Even without all the corruption from Thomas and Alito, even without the violation of the Constitution that allowed Gorsuch on the court in place of Garland, I would argue that line has already been crossed.
The immunity decision and dismantling the regulatory apparatus are both in direct opposition to the very plain written words of the Constitution. It makes it very clear in Article II that the President is subject to criminal prosecution. It makes it very clear in plain language in Article I and II that the executive branch is there to administer the laws passed by congress. It’s not vague or ambiguous in any way.
The least harmful way to overcome this illegitimate court is to ignore their decisions that cross that line. Letting them continue to shred the constitution and throwing our hands up isn’t an option.
If that’s not the line, I’d ask what is?
13 Likes
8 Likes
… the way the headline is cut off, it could mean so many things 
7 Likes
…around the Supreme Court, FWIW!
6 Likes
the problem really comes when law enforcement, state governors, or military leaders have to make a decision which branch of the government is correct.
when all three branches are roughly in accord, then the shared hallucination (err… social contract) continues to function. when they are not in accord, and when other leaders start picking sides, and who to follow – then things start to break down. and that’s when things like civil wars start.
that’s why i think – even if the court is acting unconstitutionally – staying within the bounds of established law to restrain them is important.
pack the court, give them term limits by rotating them out, pass laws to reverse their decisions, or impeach them – but having the other branches outright ignore them would – i think – lead to worse outcomes.
( i think lower courts ignoring them might be a different matter. that’s at least part of the normal process. and conservative lower court judges certainly ignore established precedent all the time. )
7 Likes
That disparity already exists. The most notable was the state of Texas running razor wire along the Rio Grande, an international border, then re-running it after the federal government removed it, but examples abound.
I’m worried more about coddling the fascists while they take over due to lack of opposition than I am that some state or county tries to declare war on the US.
5 Likes
