3 ms·
> ...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 aga
by parineum 8mo 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 8mo agoExcept for the 3 that dissented
- whateveracct 8mo agoKavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged
- jorblumesea 8mo 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 8mo agoI was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.
- interestpiqued 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo agoThe initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.
- myko 8mo agothere is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents
- interestpiqued 8mo agoI never said the world was just. But that doesn’t mean the Supreme Courts decision was as blatantly ideological as everyone imagines. Thomas concurring opinion was blatantly ideological as all his opinions are
- mrguyorama 8mo ago>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 8mo ago[flagged]
- ceejayoz 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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 8mo 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.