7 ms·
I've read Trump vs US, including the dissent. It's frankly terrifying. Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for
by dbspin 2y ago
I've read Trump vs US, including the dissent. It's frankly terrifying.
Americans not caring about these issues seems indicative of the media not being fit for purpose - rather than the issues not being existential. I'd argue that the less democratic things get, the more disengaged people tend to become about the details of political and legal decisions. Since they have less influence on them and are already suffering lacks lower down the pyramid of needs.
From Sotomayor's dissent
"Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the
President is now a king above the law. "
- NavinF 2y agoYeah that's an unfortunate decision and that Sotomayor guy is a good writer, but the decision doesn't significantly affect people who live here and the dissent is not an accurate prediction of the impact. At the end of the day, congress has the power to impeach and elected law makers keep the president in check. What do you think of the case that brought down Chevron deference? That should be a lot easier for you to analyze. Ie. "NOAA fucked around and found out"
- kmeisthax 2y agoSo, let me put it in terms people can understand: what is there to stop Biden from having the Secret Service black-bag Trump if Harris loses in November? Or stop Trump from black-bagging whoever beats the Republican that succeeds him in 2028? Or hell, what stops Biden from droning the SCOTUS justices that wrote the majority opinion right now? According to the Supreme Court, the only appropriate venue for that question is a Congressional impeachment. The only time when it looked like a President was going to be impeached and convicted was Nixon. That's why he resigned. But I doubt that would happen today. In fact, you can blame Democrats for this: they didn't convict Clinton when he was trading sexual favors, even though that was absolutely something they should have[0]. And Republicans refused to convict Trump[1] for holding up Ukraine aid for political advantage or for inciting a riot in the Capitol building. It's like if you couldn't be convicted for beating and robbing someone because you refused to sign the guilty plea. As for Chevron deference, let us keep in mind that the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench. SCOTUS consistently picks the interpretation of the Constitution that assigns the most power to the judicial branch, which they have absolute control over. The ostensible check on this power is Congress writing a new law, but Congress has been hung for over a decade, which means SCOTUS gets to cowboy-code whatever they want. [0] During the Me Too era of sexual harassment revelations Democrats started realizing "oh wait, we did WHAT back then?!" and recanting [1] A president so nice we impeached him twice.
- NavinF 2y agoI'll answer the first part with a question: If Biden black-bags Trump, do you think he will be unpunished? If so, how much do you wanna bet? Same for those other hypotheticals. > the alternative to Chevron is legislating from the bench Only when a law is unclear. Interpreting thaw is kinda why these courts exist
- dbspin 2y agoAssociate justice Sonia Sotomayor is a woman. I think perhaps there's some research warranted on your part.
- NavinF 2y agoAnd again you ignore the substance of my post. I don't know or care about the gender of the judges. I'll go ahead and leave this conversation. It's like talking to GPT-2