Your understanding of these issues seems entirely colored by incendiary headlines and the communities around them. If you want a deep dive into Supreme Court r

Your understanding of these issues seems entirely colored by incendiary headlines and the communities around them. If you want a deep dive into Supreme Court rulings and what they actually say, give the Advisory Opinions podcast a chance. Seriously. I'm not sure yet that I agree with the decision on presidential immunity on official acts, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. Ultimately it categorized what sort of presidential act is immune from future consequences and what is not, and punted the decision back to the court. It never said that any of Trump's actions he's on trial for were considered official acts. The other two decisions - Chevron and the Jarkesy/SEC one - literally weakened executive power and strengthened the legislative branch and the right to fair trial. This seems counter to your point. I mean, how do you even defend the SEC side that you shouldn't have a right to a jury trial before significant financial penalties are levied on you. Chevron allowed every new president place new administrators in charge of the regulatory state and reinterpret guidance on a whim every few years. This wrecked chaos on stable business-making. Chevron made sense originally, but today it's been abused by every president. I can't imagine a better outcome than to force congress to make laws that set a clear course for regulation. I cannot emphasize this enough: Chevron being overturned weakens executive power. Full stop. The court isn't nearly as ideologically split as you think. Erlinger v US had Kavanaugh, Alito, and Brown Jackson on the same side in dissent, which leaves you a clue about who the other liberal justices sided with. Brown Jackson, a Biden appointee, sided with the majority in support of the Jan 6th defendants on the obstruction case, while Barrett, a Trump appointee, was in the dissent. If the majority of what I told you was new information to you, what does that tell you about the journalists who produce the information you consume? My solution: stop consuming news, and start consuming critical content, so you at least start to understand the reasoning behind the decisions that you feel so inflamed by. Project 2025 is a wish list in the form of a very boring book from Heritage Foundation. Have you actually read it, or have you been told about what's in it? I disagree with the vast majority of it, but it's not an anxiety inducing, democracy ending document as headlines make it out to be. It's a policy proposal wishlist. Speaking of Chevron, Proj 2025 becomes way harder to execute with Chevron overturned, as it relies on the unchecked power of the administrative state to succeed.