5 ms·

Another remarkably dumb ruling. As I mentioned before with the Chevron ruling (though people seem incredibly blind about the real intent behind that ruling), th

Another remarkably dumb ruling. As I mentioned before with the Chevron ruling (though people seem incredibly blind about the real intent behind that ruling), the court is making a ton of naked power grabs both for itself and the power of the executive branch. Saying that the president has absolute immunity for 'official' acts is insanity and making it so only the supreme court can decide whether or not they're accountable is also clearly saying 'the only thing that matters is our decision'.

lurking15 2y ago
[flagged]
- amodee 2y ago
  Example of a vaccine mandate being upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court (1905): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
  - lurking15 2y ago
    Why should we extend a ruling from a state court from 1905 to the entire US? By any stretch this seems like cherry-picking and goes to show how baseless the argument for mandates is.
    - amodee 2y ago
      There have been many other rulings in support for vaccine mandates since that landmark decision. Reducing such measures to nothing more than 'a gross violation of bodily autonomy' and having 'no legal basis' is just ignorant and inane.
      - lurking15 2y ago
        > is just ignorant and inane My workplace was enforcing a vaccine mandate through an unconstitutional authoritarian justification jammed through a federal regulatory agency. The vaccine does not prevent transmission and offers little benefit to someone who's already survived the disease and is otherwise healthy and especially young. And it was the same sort of ultimatum that Harvey Weinstein would use "I'm not forcing you but if you don't have sex with me you don't get the job."
        amodee 2y ago
        OSHA already requires workers who come in contact with potentially infectious diseases to be vaccinated (ie. hep, HIV), not to mention other drug testing and whatever else that entails. So yeah you can see the logic trying things this way. Harvey Weinstein himself sexually assaulted women and lied about it, so no they're not similar at all. Despite how you feel and in retrospect, we now know that the vaccine was effective[1](regardless of how it was spun) and it would've been more effective if more people took it. Clearly SCOTUS saw this as overreach so sure, there was a constitutional violation the way things were handled and things are working out okay. However, your OC comes off as ignorant and disingenuous when you look into things a bit. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552389/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552389/
ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
The ruling did not give the president immunity for official acts, only for core constitutional powers. Only presumed immunity for official acts.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Let's start with this: If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? It seems rather obvious that he can't. But if it's outside his constitutional authority, yes, he can be charged. That's what all the pearl-clutchers seem to be ignoring. Yes, Trump can be charged. He doesn't have immunity for election interference (outside the scope of his office). He doesn't have immunity for keeping and mishandling classified documents, and especially for trying to hide them (outside the scope of his role once out of office). And what do you want? The Supreme Court laid down some general principles. Do you want them to judge how those principles apply to all the cases, when the lower courts haven't judged what the facts are yet? Why do you want that? Look, I get as impatient as the next person at this slow-motion case, and I worry about November coming. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a fact-finding court. Don't expect them to be.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Thank you! You put this much better than me.
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  If you need to understand why this is bad, then you need to read the dissent. The dissent makes it very clear why this decision is a bad one and what presidents can do while still being considered immune. "Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

lurking15 2y ago

[flagged]

amodee 2y ago
Example of a vaccine mandate being upheld by Massachusetts Supreme Court (1905): https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep197/usrep197011/usrep197011.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
- lurking15 2y ago
  Why should we extend a ruling from a state court from 1905 to the entire US? By any stretch this seems like cherry-picking and goes to show how baseless the argument for mandates is.
  - amodee 2y ago
    There have been many other rulings in support for vaccine mandates since that landmark decision. Reducing such measures to nothing more than 'a gross violation of bodily autonomy' and having 'no legal basis' is just ignorant and inane.
    - lurking15 2y ago
      > is just ignorant and inane My workplace was enforcing a vaccine mandate through an unconstitutional authoritarian justification jammed through a federal regulatory agency. The vaccine does not prevent transmission and offers little benefit to someone who's already survived the disease and is otherwise healthy and especially young. And it was the same sort of ultimatum that Harvey Weinstein would use "I'm not forcing you but if you don't have sex with me you don't get the job."
      - amodee 2y ago
        OSHA already requires workers who come in contact with potentially infectious diseases to be vaccinated (ie. hep, HIV), not to mention other drug testing and whatever else that entails. So yeah you can see the logic trying things this way. Harvey Weinstein himself sexually assaulted women and lied about it, so no they're not similar at all. Despite how you feel and in retrospect, we now know that the vaccine was effective[1](regardless of how it was spun) and it would've been more effective if more people took it. Clearly SCOTUS saw this as overreach so sure, there was a constitutional violation the way things were handled and things are working out okay. However, your OC comes off as ignorant and disingenuous when you look into things a bit. 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552389/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552389/

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

The ruling did not give the president immunity for official acts, only for core constitutional powers. Only presumed immunity for official acts.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Let's start with this: If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? It seems rather obvious that he can't. But if it's outside his constitutional authority, yes, he can be charged. That's what all the pearl-clutchers seem to be ignoring. Yes, Trump can be charged. He doesn't have immunity for election interference (outside the scope of his office). He doesn't have immunity for keeping and mishandling classified documents, and especially for trying to hide them (outside the scope of his role once out of office). And what do you want? The Supreme Court laid down some general principles. Do you want them to judge how those principles apply to all the cases, when the lower courts haven't judged what the facts are yet? Why do you want that? Look, I get as impatient as the next person at this slow-motion case, and I worry about November coming. But the Supreme Court isn't supposed to be a fact-finding court. Don't expect them to be.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Thank you! You put this much better than me.
fzeroracer 2y ago
If you need to understand why this is bad, then you need to read the dissent. The dissent makes it very clear why this decision is a bad one and what presidents can do while still being considered immune. "Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."