6 ms·

> In all of these 6-3 cases where Sotomayor writes the dissent, she writes entirely for the press and reserves only the last few pages to engage in anything li

> In all of these 6-3 cases where Sotomayor writes the dissent, she writes entirely for the press and reserves only the last few pages to engage in anything like the legal arguments. Her effect in these cases is profoundly pathological on the public discourse. That's one interpretation. On the other hand, I can understand her reaction at the conservative majority's repeated disrespect for stare decisis and existing case law, their tendency to craft non-textual and ahistorical reading of the Constitution to suit their short-term political goals, and their seeming bottomless capacity for subservience and deference to an obviously unlawful executive branch that has repeatedly evinced contempt for the judicial. So, given the extraordinary depths that the majority is sinking to, her dramatic dissents are more justified than you think.

mjburgess 1y ago
I'm unclear on which cases you're referring to. Roe v. Wade is the closest I can think of -- its not clear to me that this being handled by changes to state constitutions hasn't been a net benefit to the robustness of abortion law in the US. Or perhaps you mean presidental immunity. However, either way, its very hard to defend the view that the US constitution entails a democratic limit on abortion. When the SC rules that something is required or forbidden by the constitution, they mean that it is beyond the power of congress to permit or prescribe it; it is is completely outside of democratic control. The majority of the court today have a judicial philosophy which was common to the court for most of its history whereby one would only, in extremely certain cases, rule an issue entirely outside of the democratic process -- ie., decided entirely by the constitution alone, as interpreted by 9 people. It isnt the job of the SC to make america moral, or require the whole of the US to follow how you wish things to be -- their constitutional role is to prevent the operation of democracy in extremely clear cut cases. As for presidential immunity -- all constitutional centres of power (congress, the courts, the president) have immunities in the exercise of that power. These are required to enable them to function as balances of power against the other. Eg., if the president could arrest a judge for a bad judgement, the courts would not balance the executive. The court confirmed only that the president has no more or less the necessary kind of immunity that each branch has -- and this is a clear requirement of the balance of power system set up in the constitution. They left open, very widely, grounds on which a president acting outside of the duties of the office, could be prosecuted. And they clearly believed trump could be on at least some of those grounds.
- hackyhacky 1y ago
  > I'm unclear on which cases you're referring to. Roe v. Wade is the closest I can think of I wonder if you misread my comment or just aren't aware of recent court history. The current conservative majority did not decide Roe, which is a case from 1973. An example of a non-textual reading of the Constitution is last year's Trump v US case, wherein the conservative majority decided, apparently without any basis in law or Constitution, that the President is entitled to presumed criminal immunity for all official acts. You seem to have completely misinterpreted what this case was about: it's not about charging the president for "bad presidenting", it's about holding him accountable for criminal acts. Judges who violates criminal law are not exempt and enjoy no immunity. Or how about Snyder v US, wherein SCOTUS decided to neuter the federal statute on official corruption, because their reading of "bribe" required money to be proffered before and not after the corresponding official act. Or how about today's stay of the injunction against enforcement of the wildly unconstitutional attempt to void the 14th amendment, essentially giving the president the right to violate constitutional civil rates as long as he does it in states that support him against people who can't afford effective legal representation.
  - mjburgess 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - hackyhacky 1y ago
      > Your entire understanding of the SC here, under trump, has been completely distorted by emotionally-disregulating media narratives designed for those purposes. Ah yes, the classic misogynist attack: I can't possibly understand the law because I'm too emotional. If only I were logical like you. > Today's result also does not prevent state-wide injunctions, indeed, that's what they court has basically suggested. Yes, state-level injunctions are allowed. All that this means is that different citizens will get different Constitutional rights depending on which state they live in. That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work. > Congress can just change the statue. As it does a very large number of times every year. What's the point of the changing the statute when SCOTUS insists on interpreting statutes in a way contrary to their text? > That is the only impact of that ruling. It had nothing to do with criminal actions by trump. It absolutely has to do with criminal actions. Notably, any official act cannot even be used as evidence in prosecuting a criminal act against the president. So if the president conspires with the AG to illegally prosecute a political enemy, that is unprosecutable. Since anything the president does is potentially an official act, this means that there in no way to hold the president responsible for his actions, which is the opposite of the intent of the Constitution, which provides for "checks and balances." Did you fail your high school civics class? The Framers know how to provide immunity, as they do in the Speech and Debate clause. You may have a reason for supporting presidential immunity, but you can't deny that there is no basis for it in the Constitution. SCOTUS made it up, precisely at a time when their favorite president was found in flagrant violation.

mjburgess 1y ago

I'm unclear on which cases you're referring to. Roe v. Wade is the closest I can think of -- its not clear to me that this being handled by changes to state constitutions hasn't been a net benefit to the robustness of abortion law in the US. Or perhaps you mean presidental immunity. However, either way, its very hard to defend the view that the US constitution entails a democratic limit on abortion. When the SC rules that something is required or forbidden by the constitution, they mean that it is beyond the power of congress to permit or prescribe it; it is is completely outside of democratic control. The majority of the court today have a judicial philosophy which was common to the court for most of its history whereby one would only, in extremely certain cases, rule an issue entirely outside of the democratic process -- ie., decided entirely by the constitution alone, as interpreted by 9 people. It isnt the job of the SC to make america moral, or require the whole of the US to follow how you wish things to be -- their constitutional role is to prevent the operation of democracy in extremely clear cut cases. As for presidential immunity -- all constitutional centres of power (congress, the courts, the president) have immunities in the exercise of that power. These are required to enable them to function as balances of power against the other. Eg., if the president could arrest a judge for a bad judgement, the courts would not balance the executive. The court confirmed only that the president has no more or less the necessary kind of immunity that each branch has -- and this is a clear requirement of the balance of power system set up in the constitution. They left open, very widely, grounds on which a president acting outside of the duties of the office, could be prosecuted. And they clearly believed trump could be on at least some of those grounds.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> I'm unclear on which cases you're referring to. Roe v. Wade is the closest I can think of I wonder if you misread my comment or just aren't aware of recent court history. The current conservative majority did not decide Roe, which is a case from 1973. An example of a non-textual reading of the Constitution is last year's Trump v US case, wherein the conservative majority decided, apparently without any basis in law or Constitution, that the President is entitled to presumed criminal immunity for all official acts. You seem to have completely misinterpreted what this case was about: it's not about charging the president for "bad presidenting", it's about holding him accountable for criminal acts. Judges who violates criminal law are not exempt and enjoy no immunity. Or how about Snyder v US, wherein SCOTUS decided to neuter the federal statute on official corruption, because their reading of "bribe" required money to be proffered before and not after the corresponding official act. Or how about today's stay of the injunction against enforcement of the wildly unconstitutional attempt to void the 14th amendment, essentially giving the president the right to violate constitutional civil rates as long as he does it in states that support him against people who can't afford effective legal representation.
- mjburgess 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - hackyhacky 1y ago
    > Your entire understanding of the SC here, under trump, has been completely distorted by emotionally-disregulating media narratives designed for those purposes. Ah yes, the classic misogynist attack: I can't possibly understand the law because I'm too emotional. If only I were logical like you. > Today's result also does not prevent state-wide injunctions, indeed, that's what they court has basically suggested. Yes, state-level injunctions are allowed. All that this means is that different citizens will get different Constitutional rights depending on which state they live in. That's not how the Constitution is supposed to work. > Congress can just change the statue. As it does a very large number of times every year. What's the point of the changing the statute when SCOTUS insists on interpreting statutes in a way contrary to their text? > That is the only impact of that ruling. It had nothing to do with criminal actions by trump. It absolutely has to do with criminal actions. Notably, any official act cannot even be used as evidence in prosecuting a criminal act against the president. So if the president conspires with the AG to illegally prosecute a political enemy, that is unprosecutable. Since anything the president does is potentially an official act, this means that there in no way to hold the president responsible for his actions, which is the opposite of the intent of the Constitution, which provides for "checks and balances." Did you fail your high school civics class? The Framers know how to provide immunity, as they do in the Speech and Debate clause. You may have a reason for supporting presidential immunity, but you can't deny that there is no basis for it in the Constitution. SCOTUS made it up, precisely at a time when their favorite president was found in flagrant violation.