5 ms·
Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually." But unfortunately, there are ot
by apawloski 7mo ago
Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."
But unfortunately, there are other channels for them to effectively do the same thing, as discussed in oral arguments. So still not a major win for American manufacturers or consumers, I fear.
- dylan604 7mo agoSure, but now SCOTUS can say they are not a rubber stamp for POTUS. "See, we just ruled against him. Sure, it's a case that doesn't really solve anything and only causes more chaos, but we disagreed with him. This one time."
- parineum 7mo ago> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time. They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.
- axus 7mo agoExcept for the 3 that dissented
- whateveracct 7mo agoKavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged
- jorblumesea 7mo agoExcept for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts. and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.
- dylan604 7mo agoI was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoEarnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower courts to define the categories of official acts they laid out.
- bubblewand 7mo agoA hallmark of the Roberts court is leaving something technically intact, but practically gutted and dead. You can still technically bring charges against the president for things they do while in office. Practically speaking, after that ruling, you cannot, short of hypothetical scenarios so incredibly unlikely and egregious that even the incredibly unlikely and egregious acts of this administration don't meet that bar.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoAFAIK bringing charges in office had much less to do with that case. It was dismissed because he was elected president. Which seems more like a pacing problem for the prosecution. In office, they are the prosecutions boss. You’re never gonna be able to charge a sitting president. That’s what impeachment is for. Then you prosecute.
- watwut 7mo agoIt was pacing issue only because supreme court created lawless situation. The current state of things is literally their ideological project and work succeeding.
- interestpiqued 7mo agoThe initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.
- mrguyorama 7mo ago>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 7mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 7mo agoNo. Like actual bribes over a 20 year period. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un... https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-cr...
- parineum 7mo agoGranting the argument that these are bribes, I don't see how one (not several) justice taking bribes from not Trump means the Court is in Trump's pocket.
- ceejayoz 7mo agoI think it's already clear (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093049) that you struggle a bit with causality. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows-deep-dark-money-connections/ https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/analysis/harlan-crows... > Harlan Crow is more than Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s secret patron—he’s also deeply intertwined with the shadowy world of Republican dark money. In fact, Crow personally took part in the creation of the post-Citizens United dark money system and secretly helped bankroll some of the new groups.
- parineum 7mo agoI'm waiting for the link between _Trump_ and alleged bribes to Clarence Thomas. Despite the "where there's smoke there's fire" idiom, smoke is not fire. You still have to find the fire if you see smoke before you call it fire. By the analogy, your going linking smoke A to smoke B to smoke C and claiming Fire A caused Fire C. The same broken logic you used in the linked thread. Proposing an explanation that fits the facts doesn't prove that explanation correct and, more importantly, it doesn't disprove any other explanation that also fits the facts. Anyway, I stopped responding to the previous thread because your conspiratorial thinking is impervious to argument. If I had noticed it was you I was replying to, I wouldn't have replied.
- EgregiousCube 7mo agoYeah. If you look a little closely you'll see their current project is to establish the "major questions doctrine," which ultimately reduces executive power by stopping Congress from giving it all to the executive. It looks pro-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive agencies, and it looks anti-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive orders. It's really about resetting what powers Congress can delegate.
- elcritch 7mo agoIf so that’s great. Congress has long become too complacent and willing to just wait for their parties turn to use presidential overreach.
- watwut 7mo agoIt is not. The conservative justices work to create imperial presidency with no checks, except in major economical issues that threaten to harm themselves. And even this ruling had 3 of them objecting, claiming tariffs should stand.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo agoWhen they rule for Trump it’s proof they are just a rubber stamp. When they rule against Trump it’s somehow also proof they are a rubber stamp?
- Refreeze5224 7mo agoSCOTUS rules for the rich and powerful. Most of the time Trump is aligned with them. Sometimes he does dumb shit like tariffs, or things that upset the order the rich and powerful want to maintain, and they rule against him.
- dylan604 7mo agoHow do you get that from what I wrote?
- Petersipoi 7mo agoHow do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?
- Dylan16807 7mo agoThe argument is obviously that this is not enough to disprove rubber stamping. "also proof" is a strawman, plain as day.
- tt24 7mo agoIs this a serious question? Hahah
- Pxtl 7mo agoYep. The president doing horribly fascist things with ICE like obliterating habeas corpus? Using the military to murder people in the ocean without trial? That's fine. Screwing with the money? Not okay. See also how the prez is allowed to screw with any congressional appointees except the federal reserve.
- butterbomb 7mo ago> Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually." Actually they’re still doing it. I saw it not 2 minutes after seeing this post initially. The justifications for why they were “good, actually” has gotten increasingly vague though.
- Rapzid 7mo agoThe damage goes far beyond the wallets of business and consumers. The unilateral, arbitrary tariff setting has little do with money and everything to do with the power it gave Trump. And was one of the primary instruments used to destroy relationships with our foreign allies including our closes neighbor..
- luxuryballs 7mo agoTo that point it was always relative to the advantage it gained overall when used as leverage for negotiations, now the issue is what other forms of leverage remain? Whether the outcomes of the agreements are good or not is one thing but there’s room for the argument that perhaps tariffs are a better form of leverage when compared with other available options.