3 ms·

Sure, 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 on

Sure, 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 9mo 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 9mo ago
  Except for the 3 that dissented
  - whateveracct 9mo ago
    Kavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged
- jorblumesea 9mo ago
  Except 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 9mo ago
    I was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.
  - interestpiqued 9mo ago
    Earnestly, 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 9mo ago
      A 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 9mo ago
        AFAIK 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 9mo ago
        It was pacing issue only because supreme court created lawless situation. The current state of things is literally their ideological project and work succeeding.
        interestpiqued 9mo ago
        The initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.
    - myko 9mo ago
      there is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents
- mrguyorama 9mo ago
  >because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ceejayoz 9mo ago
      No. 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 9mo ago
        Granting 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 9mo ago
        I 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 9mo ago
        I'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 9mo ago
  Yeah. 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 9mo ago
    If so that’s great. Congress has long become too complacent and willing to just wait for their parties turn to use presidential overreach.
  - watwut 9mo ago
    It 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 9mo ago
When 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 9mo ago
  SCOTUS 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 9mo ago
  How do you get that from what I wrote?
  - Petersipoi 9mo ago
    How do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?
    - Dylan16807 9mo ago
      The argument is obviously that this is not enough to disprove rubber stamping. "also proof" is a strawman, plain as day.
  - tt24 9mo ago
    Is this a serious question? Hahah
Pxtl 9mo ago
Yep. 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.

parineum 9mo 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 9mo ago
Except for the 3 that dissented
- whateveracct 9mo ago
  Kavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged
jorblumesea 9mo ago
Except 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 9mo ago
  I was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.
- interestpiqued 9mo ago
  Earnestly, 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 9mo ago
    A 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 9mo ago
      AFAIK 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 9mo ago
        It was pacing issue only because supreme court created lawless situation. The current state of things is literally their ideological project and work succeeding.
        interestpiqued 9mo ago
        The initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.
  - myko 9mo ago
    there is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents
mrguyorama 9mo ago
>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 9mo ago
    No. 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 9mo ago
      Granting 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 9mo ago
        I 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 9mo ago
        I'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 9mo ago
Yeah. 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 9mo ago
  If so that’s great. Congress has long become too complacent and willing to just wait for their parties turn to use presidential overreach.
- watwut 9mo ago
  It 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 9mo ago

When 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 9mo ago
SCOTUS 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 9mo ago
How do you get that from what I wrote?
- Petersipoi 9mo ago
  How do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?
  - Dylan16807 9mo ago
    The argument is obviously that this is not enough to disprove rubber stamping. "also proof" is a strawman, plain as day.
- tt24 9mo ago
  Is this a serious question? Hahah

Pxtl 9mo ago

Yep. 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.