5 ms·

It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them t

by cdme 2y ago

It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.

boole1854 2y ago
[flagged]
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict of interest that would not be allowed on any lesser court.
  - creer 2y ago
    That is a good one and in better times might have seen them recuse themselves? Justices have recused themselves in the past for apparent possible economic conflict of interest - don't know about political conflict of interest. "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" is probably what's meant to address political conflict with a specific person: They nominally can't be removed by the person who nominated them.
    - cdme 2y ago
      Alito, Thomas nor any of Trump's appointees have the scruples or decency to recuse themselves.
  - gpm 2y ago
    It actually would be allowed. I agree it's a questionable practice but it's long standing precedent that judges can hear cases which involve the party that appointed them, e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive-office-of-the-president/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive...
- gmd63 2y ago
  Show the part of the constitution that mentions immunity for presidents. I read it again this morning after the decision and found nothing.
  - boole1854 2y ago
    The US Constitution does not discuss to what extent, if any, a President has immunity from criminal prosecution.
- jmcgough 2y ago
  How is eradicating stare decisis considered "solid legal and philosophical principles"?
- sangnoir 2y ago
  Where does the Supreme Court get it's power? In practice, it's from the people - nor from constitution or constitutional experts. There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling: then what will they do? As Andrew Jackson apocryphally noted, the supreme court has no enforcement arm.
  - GenerWork 2y ago
    >There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling This already happened with Joe Biden ignoring the Supreme Court on abolishing student debt.
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      This is disinformation. There are multiple instruments for students debt forgiveness - he is using workarounds that SCOTUS did not rule against to achieve the same policy result. The supreme court shouldn't rule on policy like you suggest, but on the law.
      - GenerWork 2y ago
        This is not misinformation. I look forward to you providing a source that outlines the "legal" way he did it.
        sangnoir 2y ago
        A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you: happy readings, and good day.
    - failuser 2y ago
      He did not ignore the Supreme Court, he got a court decision and modified the orders according to it.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  Since a not-small portion of the US constitutional law community does feel this way and you're playing the "cite your sources" card, cite some sources.
  - boole1854 2y ago
    > you're playing the "cite your sources" card But I did not request any sources. A substantive argument is excellent its own right, even if citation-free.
dawnerd 2y ago
And based on what the court ruled they probably legally could just ignore the court and congress.
- cdme 2y ago
  The lifetime appointments clearly aren't working. They should draw from lower circuits on a per term or per case basis and discard the whole lot.
chasd00 2y ago
> Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act. well.. be careful for what you wish for but i see your point. What's the supreme court going to do? Order your arrest by the FBI? Seems like the FBI would go tell them to pound sand.
paulvnickerson 2y ago
That's nonsense. You should read the ruling [1]. The summary is very readable. For a president to ignore the court and "dare to act" is what dictatorships do, and millions of people die in those cases. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

by cdme 2y ago

It's remarkable the speed at which the court has discarded any semblance of legitimacy. Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act.

boole1854 2y ago

[flagged]

insane_dreamer 2y ago
Philosophical arguments aside, the fact that three justices appointed by Trump are then ruling on whether he should be granted immunity is in itself a conflict of interest that would not be allowed on any lesser court.
- creer 2y ago
  That is a good one and in better times might have seen them recuse themselves? Justices have recused themselves in the past for apparent possible economic conflict of interest - don't know about political conflict of interest. "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour" is probably what's meant to address political conflict with a specific person: They nominally can't be removed by the person who nominated them.
  - cdme 2y ago
    Alito, Thomas nor any of Trump's appointees have the scruples or decency to recuse themselves.
- gpm 2y ago
  It actually would be allowed. I agree it's a questionable practice but it's long standing precedent that judges can hear cases which involve the party that appointed them, e.g. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive-office-of-the-president/ https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/769025/in-re-executive...
gmd63 2y ago
Show the part of the constitution that mentions immunity for presidents. I read it again this morning after the decision and found nothing.
- boole1854 2y ago
  The US Constitution does not discuss to what extent, if any, a President has immunity from criminal prosecution.
jmcgough 2y ago
How is eradicating stare decisis considered "solid legal and philosophical principles"?
sangnoir 2y ago
Where does the Supreme Court get it's power? In practice, it's from the people - nor from constitution or constitutional experts. There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling: then what will they do? As Andrew Jackson apocryphally noted, the supreme court has no enforcement arm.
- GenerWork 2y ago
  >There may come a point where some quarters of the public will willingly accept some governor, attorney general or president ignoring a supreme court ruling This already happened with Joe Biden ignoring the Supreme Court on abolishing student debt.
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    This is disinformation. There are multiple instruments for students debt forgiveness - he is using workarounds that SCOTUS did not rule against to achieve the same policy result. The supreme court shouldn't rule on policy like you suggest, but on the law.
    - GenerWork 2y ago
      This is not misinformation. I look forward to you providing a source that outlines the "legal" way he did it.
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on you: happy readings, and good day.
  - failuser 2y ago
    He did not ignore the Supreme Court, he got a court decision and modified the orders according to it.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Since a not-small portion of the US constitutional law community does feel this way and you're playing the "cite your sources" card, cite some sources.
- boole1854 2y ago
  > you're playing the "cite your sources" card But I did not request any sources. A substantive argument is excellent its own right, even if citation-free.

dawnerd 2y ago

And based on what the court ruled they probably legally could just ignore the court and congress.

cdme 2y ago
The lifetime appointments clearly aren't working. They should draw from lower circuits on a per term or per case basis and discard the whole lot.

chasd00 2y ago

> Perhaps future administrations should simply ignore them and dare them to act. well.. be careful for what you wish for but i see your point. What's the supreme court going to do? Order your arrest by the FBI? Seems like the FBI would go tell them to pound sand.

paulvnickerson 2y ago

That's nonsense. You should read the ruling [1]. The summary is very readable. For a president to ignore the court and "dare to act" is what dictatorships do, and millions of people die in those cases. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf