That didn’t escape me, no.
I didn’t feel like being that depressing.
It’s like I was reading your mind for the quiet parts you didn’t want to say out loud. Not that it was hard, it’s in the back of the mind of most persons participating in the thread I’d bet.
That’s a pretty safe bet.
Yes. The Court would likely find that habeus corpus and due process mandate release (which is the right interpretation IMO).
ETA: Again, the immunity decision isn’t about what the president can or cannot do. It’s about when the president is immune for violating criminal laws. So if a subsequent administration charged the prior president with false imprisonment or kidnapping, the Court would presumably rule that the act was immune from criminal prosecution. This of course has at least a couple of adverse consequences: (1) presidents are emboldened to push the envelope, and (2) the Supreme Court gets to be the arbiter of executive branch decisions.
We’re all whistling past the graveyard.
Not if we reign in these fools. Which we must do.
I’m real interested to hear how we are going to do that.
This is the culmination of a more-than-30-year effort on the part of Republicans, fueled by the rejection of Robert Bork on the Supreme Court in 1987. It’s why Mitch McConnell was willing to defy custom and practice to deny President Obama his vote on Merrick Garland for the seat opened by the death of Scalia, and forced the appointment of Gorsuch. And why McConnell flagrantly manipulated the process for the appointments of Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett.
They have at last achieved their objective of total control over the Court. They know nothing can touch them. If you think they’re going to abandon their efforts to remake the country as they want it now that they have at last accomplished their goal, then I have bad news for you. They got to work fast and they have already made very consequential decisions in just this past term that will have far-reaching consequences to achieve their ends.
I’ll go further: I think they will assist Republicans to steal this election from Democrats if the election is close. It’s that bad.
Then we’re going to have a revolution in which we throw them (the individuals) and the concept out entirely.
I’ve said it in another thread a long time ago, but if you have 5-4 decisions, then that is a mini legislature in conflict with itself. How much better, then, to allow the real legislature, the Congress to decide such matters.
I think that, at the very least, in the case of non-unanimous decisions, that Congress should have the option of adopting the minority, i.e., the dissenting opinion. Why should nine assholes be empowered to decide what so many more assholes were elected to determine?
When Republicans were bitching about the Court “legislating from the bench,” back in the 1980s, they absolutely weren’t wrong. I think Roe was incorrectly decided and Dobbs was as well. The first just made up a new law; the second overturned a made up law that had 50 years’ worth of momentum behind it. This is the kind of thing that, you know, the American people should have been deciding through elected representatives and constitutional amendments. But Congress has become so sclerotic and inept that we have learned to depend on the Court to effect any change worth effecting. It’s not healthy. Like our entire government, if we’re being real about it.
The OP might just have had a point (being very generous indeed to the SCOTUS) with just the abortion ruling. But when combined with Chevron and then most of all the immunity ruling, no way.
There is no serious constitutional logic that could lead you to believe on hand that because the constitution doesn’t explicitly say so it doesn’t protect women from having their bodies regulated by the legislature. Then on the other hand despite nothing in the constitution saying anything about it (and plenty of writings by the framers saying the opposite) claiming the constitution does protect the president from prosecution.
That’s just partisanship and protecting the interests of the person who hired you, about as blatant as can be. I really didn’t think they would find that way, but doing so the SCOTUS has absolutely exposed themselves as 100% partisan and biased.
I guess that should be “rein in.” I am a fool myself!
Thing is, the whole “judicial review” thing was never a great idea in the first place. These dickheads have always just made up whatever they wanted to. Is it actually, you know, written down in the Constitution? No? Oh well, no problem! We’ll just make something up!
Sometimes they’ve made shit up in erudite, respectable, reasonable ways, and sometimes they’ve done the opposite. It’s all a game of make believe anyway. The current Court is making shit up in chaotic, antisocial, and fascist-serving ways. I hate and despise the fascist members of this corrupt dogshit court, but, to be fair, they’ve always just made shit up as they saw fit.
No, we won’t. We’ve been in the pot for so long that we have normalized the smell of boiled democracy.
Pot don’t smell like that.
Just as bad, though.
On topic article with a soft paywall: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms
On the off-chance you aren’t joking, the reference is the cooking pot you throw shellfish into, slowly bringing it to a boil so that when by the time they realize what is happening it is too late to jump out.
I know. Frog boiling in a pot… used the analogy in a another post like yesterday…
Oooh, I thought you said on the pot, not in the pot…
So it’s complete side track, but how so? Are you saying we should have a constitution but not have judicial oversight of that constitution? That doesn’t really make sense, no matter how unambiguously written your constitution is there will always be edge cases (are threats protected by the freedom of speech? Is human sacrifice protected by freedom religion?). Or are you saying we shouldn’t have a constitution and any judicial review at all, and just whatever laws get passed thats it, they are the law, no questions asked?
Good questions… that our founders never considered. Judicial review was a power arrogated by the court in Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia.
I’m not a lawyer so I will leave the solution to others, but we clearly need some kind of safety valve on judicial review, as the current court demonstrates by overturning precedent like it’s nothing and making up new law out of whole cloth.
What would we do if the court decided, “Donald Trump is uniquely immune, and we declare him president for life with dictatorial powers”? Because they are not far from that. Impeach? Expand the court? The GOP would be hopping with glee and refusing to participate in any solution. A revolution would be necessary at that point. There are currently zero practical limits or checks on their power.