The US Supreme Court

[Tero]

The court gave Trump something. He was within his rights to push his DOJ to act and reverse the election. Only...the DOJ has no real power here. The courts are pretty indepedent here.

Confusing term: presumptive immunity.

[Tero]

Biden can now send Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. He can only be impeached for that

[Tero]

[Tero]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on Monday she’ll submit articles of impeachment against members of the U.S. Supreme Court when the House of Representatives is back in session.

“The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control,” the left-wing lawmaker wrote on X, formerly called Twitter. “Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandr ... um=threads

[pErvinalia]

Good for her. The US is in trouble.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Depends on politics. There's an element in the US that looks forward to joining the informal league of right wing authoritarian countries: Hungary, Russia, North Korea, etc. They see this as progress, the triumph of the righteous over degenerates who coddle harmful deviants like gays and trans people--restoration of the proper order to society. Putting the president above the law as long as they are acting in an 'official' capacity (where 'official' is left undefined) is a step in that direction.

[Tero]

The majority opinion, penned by Roberts himself alleges the founders of this country, the Framers of the Constitution, those men who'd just fought a bloody war of rebellion to free themselves from a monarch utterly immune from accountability and the law, actually envisioned an Executive who would likewise be immune from the law and accountability but is also somehow not a king.

Ur?

Never mind, he's rollin'

The opinion uses words like “vigorous,” “energetic," "decisive," and "speedy execution” of the president's duty to "faithfully execute" the law -- something the president has been able to do for 248 years, through multiple wars and myriad national emergencies, somehow without having absolute immunity.

The President must have “absolute immunity” for any “official act within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority," reasons the Chief Justice.

Now, again, I'm not a lawyer, but I noticed that the Chief Justice and his conservative Trump-appointed coconspirators on the Court didn't bother to define "official acts." That seems a strange omission, doesn't it? If they didn't define official acts, who does? The president? And Republicans don't see this as problematic?

https://www.stonekettle.com/

I can help him out: all presidential acts are official acts, inluding Bill getting blow jobs.

[L'Emmerdeur]

A compilation of previous statements by five of the justices who ruled in favor of 'absolute immunity.' The title is bullshit in my opinion. I don't think these betrayers of their office are 'haunted' by a journalist highlighting their hypocrisy. They appear to be nearly shameless--partisan fervor salving any twinge of scruple that may cross their benighted minds.

In any event we know from their previous performative statements regarding respect for precedent (Roe v. Wade) that they were calculating and mendacious in their confirmation hearings.

'Five SCOTUS Justices’ Comments on Prez Immunity Come Back to Haunt Them'

Collective amnesia seems to have struck the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, especially around the question: Is the president above the law?

Five of the six conservative justices who ruled to give the president absolute immunity for “core” presidential duties seem to have made contradictory statements during their Senate confirmation hearings.

“No man is above the law,” Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) during his confirmation hearing in 2017.

Gorsuch even doubled down, calling the court’s landmark 1952 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer, which reigned in presidential authority, a “brilliant opinion.”

[Similar quotes from four others. Apparently Clarence Thomas never had to answer the question.]

The title may be the product of a headline editor but the solecism of 'reigned in' in place of 'reined in' is on the head of the journalist (and proofreader if any).

[Brian Peacock]

Trump will relish words like “vigorous,” “energetic," "decisive," and "speedy execution”.

[JimC]

It would seem to depend on the definition of what constitutes "core presidential duties". Begging a Georgia official for more votes would seem to be outside this category...

[Brian Peacock]

Scientific American reports on the SCOTUS ruling on the 'Chevron Doctrine'.

How a Landmark Supreme Court Decision Will Reshape the U.S. Energy Sector

The Supreme Court's decision Friday to give judges more authority over federal agencies creates new hurdles for the Biden administration as it seeks to promote low-carbon energy and address climate change.



Forty years after the justices first decided Chevron v. NRDC, the high court opted to upend legal doctrine directing courts to defer to agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws, as long as the decisions were "reasonable." Now, courts could have more say in interpreting rules on everything from EPA’s latest effort to curb power plant emissions to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's orders on transmission lines.

"Where agencies appear to be carrying out sweeping and adventurous regulatory efforts to address our most pressing issues, that sort of effort is going to be immediately called into question," said Joel Eisen, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

The 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts came after the court had curbed agency deference in a series of recent rulings, even as the Chevron doctrine continued to be applied in lower courts.

Friday’s decision affected two cases — Loper Bright v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Commerce — and could have wide-ranging implications for a host of energy and environmental rulemakings.

Along with affecting EPA’s power plant rules and FERC orders, the decision could also make it more difficult for the administration to defend its efforts to reduce climate-warming pollution from cars and trucks. It could complicate the already embattled Securities and Exchange Commission’s effort to force public companies to disclose more information about their climate risks...

[JimC]

How dare those scientists affect our freedums just to save the planet!

[Joe]

A compilation of previous statements by five of the justices who ruled in favor of 'absolute immunity.' The title is bullshit in my opinion. I don't think these betrayers of their office are 'haunted' by a journalist highlighting their hypocrisy. They appear to be nearly shameless--partisan fervor salving any twinge of scruple that may cross their benighted minds.

In any event we know from their previous performative statements regarding respect for precedent (Roe v. Wade) that they were calculating and mendacious in their confirmation hearings.

'Five SCOTUS Justices’ Comments on Prez Immunity Come Back to Haunt Them'

Collective amnesia seems to have struck the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, especially around the question: Is the president above the law?

Five of the six conservative justices who ruled to give the president absolute immunity for “core” presidential duties seem to have made contradictory statements during their Senate confirmation hearings.

“No man is above the law,” Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) during his confirmation hearing in 2017.

Gorsuch even doubled down, calling the court’s landmark 1952 decision in Youngstown v. Sawyer, which reigned in presidential authority, a “brilliant opinion.”

[Similar quotes from four others. Apparently Clarence Thomas never had to answer the question.]

The title may be the product of a headline editor but the solecism of 'reigned in' in place of 'reined in' is on the head of the journalist (and proofreader if any).

It's pretty ironic that they also forgot about originalism and textualism and found presidential immunity in the penumbra of the executive power that no one noticed in over two centuries of jurisprudence.

[L'Emmerdeur]

It's pretty ironic that they also forgot about originalism and textualism and found presidential immunity in the penumbra of the executive power that no one noticed in over two centuries of jurisprudence.

Well said. It seems like the US right wing has adopted Trump's method (if it can be called that) of simply not caring whether their actions and statements have any relation to reality, consistency, or agreement with their supposed guiding principles/ideals.

For example, who actually believes that giving fat tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthy is the way to Make America Great Again? Aside from Republican politicians, corporate boards and the stinking rich that is.

[Tero]

The court approved bribes. As long as you give the bribe afterward.

Who has money to give to bureaucrats? Rich people. The court made sure those nasty regulations can be just canceled.