3 ms·

> if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something. Yep. The ruling says

> if congress doesn't like something a president is doing, they can change the laws and remove his or her legal authority to do something. Yep. The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it. That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11. So the obvious answer to this ruling is to fix that. The President shouldn't have to wonder if they'll end up prosecuted for doing things that are within the scope of their official duties, so what we need to do is more clearly define and limit those official duties so that the President doesn't have to guess what will be seen as crossing an imaginary line when the administration changes.

arrosenberg 2y ago
> That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11. I agree with you - it's not like Bush has been held accountable in any way. Neither has Cheney, and we know Rumsfeld never will. Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. That requires people to organize to make them. I'm not seeing it happen.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. Congress granted the Bush administration broad powers. The problem is not inaction.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  > and we know Rumsfeld never will You mean because he has been dead for 3 years?
afiori 2y ago
This is the obvious answer to any supreme court ruling you want to change: congress can simply change the law/constitution. A giant part of the issue of commonlaw systems is that so much of the "law" is not laws but rulings and those are a lot easier to change/ignore/overrule.
- burutthrow1234 2y ago
  "Change the law" versus "change the constitution" are two very different things. The US couldn't pass the ERA, which just enshrines women's rights in the Constitution. Anything more controversial like "the President can't do extrajudicial murders" would be an endless partisan battle
  - afiori 2y ago
    I am not saying that they are easy to do, but it is their power to wield.
- randombits0 2y ago
  No. The remedy Congress has is impeachment, not “change the Constitution”. Even if Congress could easily change the Constitution (they can’t), it would not apply to actions taken previous to the change.
  - afiori 2y ago
    Whether laws can be applied retroactively is decided by the constitution :) But yes, what I meant is that the supreme court has the power to interpret the law and uphold the constitution, but it is on the legislation to draft precise laws.
kybernetikos 2y ago
> The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it. The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity and precluded from examining motive, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago
  > If there is a presumption of immunity, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly. Well yeah that's true. But uh, you are talking lawyer talk with a set of opinions, insincerely held, because they are most concerned with "owning the libs" above everything else.
gmd63 2y ago
[flagged]

arrosenberg 2y ago

> That seems fine on its face, but the problem people keep raising is that we live in a world where the President is legally empowered to do things that are seriously problematic. That's a very real concern, and it's been a concern at the very least since Bush and 9/11. I agree with you - it's not like Bush has been held accountable in any way. Neither has Cheney, and we know Rumsfeld never will. Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. That requires people to organize to make them. I'm not seeing it happen.

pseudalopex 2y ago
> Congress needs to get off its' duff and regulate. Congress granted the Bush administration broad powers. The problem is not inaction.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
> and we know Rumsfeld never will You mean because he has been dead for 3 years?

afiori 2y ago

This is the obvious answer to any supreme court ruling you want to change: congress can simply change the law/constitution. A giant part of the issue of commonlaw systems is that so much of the "law" is not laws but rulings and those are a lot easier to change/ignore/overrule.

burutthrow1234 2y ago
"Change the law" versus "change the constitution" are two very different things. The US couldn't pass the ERA, which just enshrines women's rights in the Constitution. Anything more controversial like "the President can't do extrajudicial murders" would be an endless partisan battle
- afiori 2y ago
  I am not saying that they are easy to do, but it is their power to wield.
randombits0 2y ago
No. The remedy Congress has is impeachment, not “change the Constitution”. Even if Congress could easily change the Constitution (they can’t), it would not apply to actions taken previous to the change.
- afiori 2y ago
  Whether laws can be applied retroactively is decided by the constitution :) But yes, what I meant is that the supreme court has the power to interpret the law and uphold the constitution, but it is on the legislation to draft precise laws.

kybernetikos 2y ago

> The ruling says that if the President is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties then they shouldn't have to wonder if they'll later be prosecuted for it. The other big problem is how do you resolve a question of whether the president is acting within the legally and constitutionally defined scope of their duties? If there is a presumption of immunity and precluded from examining motive, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly.

doctorpangloss 2y ago
> If there is a presumption of immunity, it may be nearly impossible to establish the facts in cases where the president is acting improperly. Well yeah that's true. But uh, you are talking lawyer talk with a set of opinions, insincerely held, because they are most concerned with "owning the libs" above everything else.

gmd63 2y ago

[flagged]