4 ms·

> This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling. Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. > they opened the door to official corruption, Their job is

> This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling. Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. > they opened the door to official corruption, Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC rulings to make these clarifications. > Your position makes it impossible to ever find that SCOTUS... I don't think you've understood my point. My point was only that today's ruling asserts what you are asserting. The SC has explicitly said that they will still impose universal injunctions, still invalidate executive orders, etc. Only that district courts cannot. There is nothing in this principle which means that the courts can no longer constrain the executive. The constitution only prescribes one court, the supreme court -- all others are created by congress and must therefore be granted these powers by congress. What the SC has said is that these powers were not given to district courts by congress. They still can be if congress wishes. So congress can grant these powers. All of this is irrelevant anyway, as K explains in his concurrence, that there are many ways to universally challege this order that do not require extraordinary powers to be given to district court judges, powers never given to them by congress.

hackyhacky 1y ago
> Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. No it isn't, and please stop lying. > Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC rulings to make these clarifications. I don't recall using the word moral. In this case, their interpretation is not supported by the text or intent of Congress. When they do that, it's called legislating from the bench, which are you are okay with, because in your mind SCOTUS can never be wrong. > that there are many ways to universally challege this order that do not require extraordinary powers to be given to district court judges, powers never given to them by congress. There is nothing extraordinary about it. They've been doing it for centuries, but strangely SOCTUS chooses this moment to break with history. And again, you're fine with it, because "rule of law" does not mean anything to you. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. If the executive branch is not constrained by the law (as in your reading, judges cannot tell the executive what to do), then the executive branch is above the law. That's a monarchy. We fought a war to avoid just such an outcome. EDIT: I feel like you're arguing with someone else. You respond to arguments that I didn't make and ignore the arguments that I do. You've been so conditioned to performatively support "your side" that you can't even bring yourself to read what the other side says. I never suggested that SCOTUS has an obligation to behave "morally", only that that must interpret the law and the Constitution, and then I pointed out cases where they have failed to do that.
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  Their responses were unnerving and it's honestly frightening that anyone can be so deluded. They've lied multiple times about the contents of the ruling, they've repeatedly ignored your arguments and hallucinated you making arguments you never even implied, and all of that wrapped up in a transparent facade of civility. It is twisted and vile.
DangitBobby 1y ago
Dude, if it's in there and "explicit" just fucking cite the thing? Why are you declaring that it's obviously in there?
- mjburgess 1y ago
  There's two types of person I could be arguing with: one who has just misunderstood the ruling by being credulous of the discourse around it; and one who has misunderstood it by having a partial understanding of the legal context. My goal was the address the former by explaining the judgement. A person of the latter kind would take much more of my time than I can give. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to be helpful by adding explanatory context. If a person has read the ruling and insists that it places the person of the president, privately, above the law -- then I'd need several hours to explain all the relevant issues. A comment thread isn't a viable place to conduct a seminar on constitutional law, nor exegesis of a SC legal opinion to that depth. I had hoped I could just explain that the congress and the courts have immunities, and this is just confirming that the office of the president has exactly the same kind of immunity. And that this immunity does not transfer privately to the holder of that office, just as a senator cannot murder someone. There are deep technical issues surrounding the status of the attorney general which muddies the waters, because this is not a constitutional position, and the constitution does not foresee any one but congress holding the president (as president) to legal account. In that sense, it places the president (as president, not as a private person) outside congress' modern established processes for federal law -- but that's what the constitution actually says. But this process has never worked anyway: the AG is an executive position the president already controls, so it has never made sense to imagine they are answerable to the AG. The SC confirms the plain text of the constitution which is the office of the president is one of the three branches of government which is held to legal account only by impeachment by congress. The office holder, eg., trump, can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, when he isnt the president.
  - wtfwhateven 1y ago
    >can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, How is this meant to happen if all the evidence for such crimes are inadmissible due to the ruling?

hackyhacky 1y ago

> Then you haven't read it. It's explicit. No it isn't, and please stop lying. > Their job is not to make America moral, that's the job of the congress and the democractic process of government. If they say a statue means A rather than B, it is then the job of elected representatives to clarify they mean B. Or else you believe 9 unelected people should govern the country. Congress often modifies law in light of SC rulings to make these clarifications. I don't recall using the word moral. In this case, their interpretation is not supported by the text or intent of Congress. When they do that, it's called legislating from the bench, which are you are okay with, because in your mind SCOTUS can never be wrong. > that there are many ways to universally challege this order that do not require extraordinary powers to be given to district court judges, powers never given to them by congress. There is nothing extraordinary about it. They've been doing it for centuries, but strangely SOCTUS chooses this moment to break with history. And again, you're fine with it, because "rule of law" does not mean anything to you. The role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law. If the executive branch is not constrained by the law (as in your reading, judges cannot tell the executive what to do), then the executive branch is above the law. That's a monarchy. We fought a war to avoid just such an outcome. EDIT: I feel like you're arguing with someone else. You respond to arguments that I didn't make and ignore the arguments that I do. You've been so conditioned to performatively support "your side" that you can't even bring yourself to read what the other side says. I never suggested that SCOTUS has an obligation to behave "morally", only that that must interpret the law and the Constitution, and then I pointed out cases where they have failed to do that.

wtfwhateven 1y ago
Their responses were unnerving and it's honestly frightening that anyone can be so deluded. They've lied multiple times about the contents of the ruling, they've repeatedly ignored your arguments and hallucinated you making arguments you never even implied, and all of that wrapped up in a transparent facade of civility. It is twisted and vile.

DangitBobby 1y ago

Dude, if it's in there and "explicit" just fucking cite the thing? Why are you declaring that it's obviously in there?

mjburgess 1y ago
There's two types of person I could be arguing with: one who has just misunderstood the ruling by being credulous of the discourse around it; and one who has misunderstood it by having a partial understanding of the legal context. My goal was the address the former by explaining the judgement. A person of the latter kind would take much more of my time than I can give. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to be helpful by adding explanatory context. If a person has read the ruling and insists that it places the person of the president, privately, above the law -- then I'd need several hours to explain all the relevant issues. A comment thread isn't a viable place to conduct a seminar on constitutional law, nor exegesis of a SC legal opinion to that depth. I had hoped I could just explain that the congress and the courts have immunities, and this is just confirming that the office of the president has exactly the same kind of immunity. And that this immunity does not transfer privately to the holder of that office, just as a senator cannot murder someone. There are deep technical issues surrounding the status of the attorney general which muddies the waters, because this is not a constitutional position, and the constitution does not foresee any one but congress holding the president (as president) to legal account. In that sense, it places the president (as president, not as a private person) outside congress' modern established processes for federal law -- but that's what the constitution actually says. But this process has never worked anyway: the AG is an executive position the president already controls, so it has never made sense to imagine they are answerable to the AG. The SC confirms the plain text of the constitution which is the office of the president is one of the three branches of government which is held to legal account only by impeachment by congress. The office holder, eg., trump, can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, when he isnt the president.
- wtfwhateven 1y ago
  >can still be prosecuted as a private citizen for crimes, in his own private interest, taken during office, How is this meant to happen if all the evidence for such crimes are inadmissible due to the ruling?