It’s only ever been a pretext.
23 Likes
We are all in immediate danger.
11 Likes
The originalist interpretation is someone would have already challenged those Supreme Court justices to a pistol dual for their their slimey antics.
9 Likes
Same can be said re the unworkable language when they overturned Roe.
Ambiguity. Also: states rights something something.
At least we are now seeing consistently how they intend to implement their Project [2025].
To paraphrase that one line from The Martian… they are gonna have to ambigu-ize the shit out this. This (I put it to y’all) is how MAGAs want our new future.
6 Likes
Or go the other way around. Issue an executive order (obviously an official act that falls within his area of responsibility) that Donald Trump’s actions on January 6th, 2021 were not Official Acts of the President of the United States of America. If Trump tries to argue that Biden overstepped his bounds, as an official act of the President by this case’s ruling it cannot be reviewed by the courts.
16 Likes
Yes, I’m very fucking aware of that. 
3 Likes
Well, as long as we can blame the Democrats, it’s all good… /s
7 Likes
No, that was the question SCOTUS was asked and this is their answer. You don’t get a second bite at the apple. The lower court gets to make this call, but they have to consider it again based on this guidance. There’s no appeal to this, which is why some RWNJ sources consider this as SCOTUS throwing T**** under the bus.
11 Likes
It must be maddening, to either be a practicing lawyer, or to be in law school, and deal with changes like this.
It’s one thing when continuing education is required of medical doctors. I mean, facts are facts. Science is science. Preferably peer-reviewed. Even when there are new developments in one’s medical specialty, there are still facts.
The SCOTUS decision here now has firmly planted us in a kind of post-ethics land-grab power-grab, and may the saints preserve us. This is not the permission structure I want to see in the U.S.
May the forces of light prevail in November. It’s gonna be one for the history books, either way.
18 Likes
Where is this logic that we need an Executive who, specifically, must be fully bold and fearless in their actions? I’ve seen it in the last few years, but it feels like some new legal theory that people adopted.
The more you concentrate power in one place, the harsher the consequences for its abuse. The last thing I want is a president who feels there is no consequence for their actions.
We’ve got a surplus of people in power making decisions for the rest of us who seem assured that it couldn’t possibly blow back on them.
16 Likes
9 Likes
I think is obfuscation as part of a bad faith argument designed for specific emotional response to avoid reason.
The law says the president can make decisions in this box of possibilities.
But, what if the decision is about some immediate threat of terrorist attack against puppies and children. Clearly in this scenario, the president shouldn’t be spending time worrying about if the decision they take is within or beyond that box of possibilities available to them. They need to act fast, decisive, and fearlessly to save the puppies and children!
Please just ignore that this isn’t true, and that the entire concept of the president’s responsibilities is set by law and the fundamental definition of the how the government works.
Cause, puppies and children, you know. 
13 Likes
Sure, you can read that as a dig at the Dems specifically and not a critique of the entire political system as a whole. 
1 Like
One party is fascist. The other is not. Both sides are not the same. But your comment very much focused on the NON fascist party as the problem. I get that the Democrats are not ideal, but rather than whinging about it, maybe more of us should join the party and push it in the direction we want it to go. Maybe your active, I don’t know, but I do know that we need to keep in mind that one party is a full on fascist party now, and are working to set up a one party state. That is happening RIGHT NOW. That is what this ruling is aimed at, the creation of a one party theocratic state.
17 Likes
You know, I just can’t figure out how “breaking the law,” can be considered an “official act.” I just can’t figure out how the majority squared that circle.
Edited to add: ESPECIALLY since his “official act” was allegedly interfering with Pence’s constitutionally enumerated job of presiding over the Senate. The president really has zero authority over the vice president. He can’t fire him, he can’t punish him, or order him to do anything. The only thing that the president can do is decline to give him any additional duties.
6 Likes
Because they are helping carry out a coup.
19 Likes
Well, it’s perfectly obvious that the President needs unchecked powers so that he can defend the nation against existential threats to our democracy, such as a President with unchecked powers threatening our democracy. Uh, wait, no, not that.
22 Likes
THIS! (Mainly.)
9 Likes
The court left the bulk of the analysis up to Chutkan. But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, found that Trump’s threat to fire the then-acting attorney general for refusing to open investigations were protected, because the justice department is part of the executive branch.
Gone is JD independence. So, yes. We’re fucked.
Roberts similarly found that Trump’s effort to pressure Pence was probably protected, as the president discussing responsibilities with the vice president was an instance of official conduct. “Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” the opinion said.
However…
The final decision on the Pence question rested with Chutkan, wrote Roberts.
Even if Chutkin finds that not a single thing in the indictment falls under “official duties” and does not have immunity, this is STILL giving the office of the presidency vast immunity from prosecution. So, there is no power anymore for equality under the law.
And then there is this…
The effect of the ruling to block a prompt trial, after the court moved quickly to keep Trump on the ballot in March, has already ignited fierce criticism by liberals and others who believe Trump’s case should be resolved before voters cast their ballots in the forthcoming election.
Trump’s legal strategy for all of his federal criminal cases – he also faces charges in Florida for illegally retaining classified documents – has been to delay them until after the election, in the hope that he will be re-elected and can appoint as attorney general a loyalist who would drop the charges.
The court just gave Trump all he wants here. THIS IS A VICTORY FOR THE FASCISTS.
21 Likes
13 Likes
