The Supreme Court discussion thread
So it now seems absolutely certain that the court will end up hearing an abortion related case sometime in the future. How should they adjudicate these new laws?
FWIW, I've always thought that the decision in Roe is worth reading, because it makes an interesting legal and philosophical argument in support of the compromise the justices reached, attempting to balance the the constitutional "right to privacy" which entails women's right to self-determination and the "legitimate state interest" in regulating abortion, e.g.
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus.... As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
This balancing of interests leads them to make the viability of the fetus an inflection point with regard to when the state may legitimately assert an interest in requiring that the life of the fetus be protected.
With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Does the compromise outlined in Roe still make sense?
I also think there's probably room for a discussion about the role of the courts more generally, here, and particularly the way they are becoming politicized simply because the appointment process is so heavily politicized, i.e. the refusal to hold a vote on Merrick Garland, the Kavanaugh hearings, etc. But then one of the criticisms of Roe itself is that the compromise they reached might have been more appropriately reached via a legislative process, rather than by the courts. I've always thought that would have been optimal, but then I would not have traded the "optimal" legislative process for abortion being illegal the last 50 years either. So I am a supporter of Roe.
I haven't read it closely yet, but the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity goes further than I expected. It states that the president (i) has absolute immunity for acts that fall within the president's core constitutional power, (ii) presumptive immunity for official acts, and (iii) no immunity for unofficial acts.
This is more or less the framework that I expected, but based on the way the opinion is written, it is hard to see how a prosecutor would successfully overcome the presumption
Hi, do you know what “presumptive immunity” means in practice in this context? Googling hasn’t helped me at all.
Hi, do you know what “presumptive immunity” means in practice in this context? Googling hasn’t helped me at all.
No one knows what it means because they they made it up just now and it’s only a standard that applies in the specific context of a President being prosecuted.
As stated in the opinion, it means that the president is immune for all official acts unless the prosecution can show that charging the president for those actions would not “intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.”
Again, no one knows what that means yet.
So, as I read it, in order to charge the President you need to show that the action is either an “unofficial act” or an official act that is not specifically written in the constitution AND that prosecution for that act would no “ intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch”.
Bottom line - this case is going nowhere fast. 0 chance it happens before election.
supreme court should be abolished
Indeed. Shouldn't have had to wait until the obvious happened.
and most people don't know that "champion of the left" RBG said in one of her rulings against indigenous sovereignty(against the victims of USA genocide)
"Thus the Court must prevent 'the Tribe from rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.'”
and she was pro eugenics. and racist
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.
pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you might have money entering an account? but nothing can be used to show what that money was for without encroaching on official acts.
and most people don't know that "champion of the left" RBG said in one of her rulings against indigenous sovereignty(against the victims of USA genocide)
"Thus the Court must prevent 'the Tribe from rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.'”
and she was pro eugenics. and racist
This is a misquote from City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY.
The land in question was part of a 300,000 acre area has been designated as an Oneida reservation pursuant to a treaty between the U.S. government and the Oneida nation in 1788. In 1807, a member of the OIN sold the land in question (which later became Sherrill) to a non-Native American. The OIN repurchased the land nearly two hundred years later in the late 1990s and then refused to pay property taxes on the theory that it was OIN land.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Ginsberg said:
We now reject the unification theory of OIN and the United States and hold that “standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice” preclude the Tribe from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.
U.S. treatment of Native Americans is undeniably shameful, but your misquote makes it sounds as if the Court affirmatively stated that it was important to preclude the OIN from exercising sovereignty over OIN land, which isn't what this case was about at all.
This is what happens when you read tweets about opinions rather than the opinions themselves.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.
pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you might have money entering an account? but nothing can be used to show what that money was for without encroaching on offi
Correct. Sotomayor made this exact point in her dissent.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.
pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you might have money entering an account? but nothing can be used to show what that money was for without encroaching on offi
There was a bribery decision a couple days before that basically said this isn’t a crime for anyone under the theft of funds statute unless you specifically agree to do the pardon in exchange for the money afterwards. Which is practically impossible to prove unless you’re really really stupid
This is a misquote from City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY.
The land in question was part of a 300,000 acre area has been designated as an Oneida reservation pursuant to a treaty between the U.S. government and the Oneida nation in 1788. In 1807, a member of the OIN sold the land in question (which later became Sherrill) to a non-Native American. The OIN repurchased the land nearly two hundred years later in the late 1990s and then refused to pay property taxes on the theory tha
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?
and what do you mean the "theory" that it was OIN land?
it seems to me the court was precisely stating it's important to preclude OIN from exercising sovereignty over their own land.
or maybe I'm totally not understanding what you're saying lol
like if have sovereignty over your own land, why do you have to pay a foreign invading govt tax?
and that quote... it sounds to me like "... rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold"... it sounds like the unspoken part at the end is like "cuz you lost bitch lol. we genocided your ass. now pay up"
how does that quote mean anything other than, "you have no power. we have all the power. we took it. you can't have it back"?
and I'm genuinely asking. cuz I can't see it meaning anything else, but you seem to think I misunderstood, and she is saying something else.
what is she saying there?
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?
I know nothing about this case whatsoever, but Rococo clearly explained in his post that OIN sold some of the land and later bought it back. That is the land in question, not the rest. Do you disagree that these are the facts underlying the case?
So trump acting officially to steal the election through a Georgia call was an official , so trump his immune even tho it goes against the constitution?
So the president end up higher then the constitution and can contradict his oath of defending the constitution ?
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?
and what do you mean the "theory" that it was OIN land?
it seems to me the court was precisely stating it's important to preclude OIN from exercising sovereignty over their own land.
or maybe I'm totally not understanding what you're saying lol
like if have sovereignty over your own land, why do
If you want to understand the decision better, read the majority opinion and the dissent by John Paul Stevens. I am neither defending the decision nor criticizing it. It was obvious to me from your initial comment about the decision that you hadn't read the opinion. And you still haven't.
I was coming here for the Supreme Court ruling on the Office of the President... but instead, all I found was Trump talk.
So trump acting officially to steal the election through a Georgia call was an official , so trump his immune even tho it goes against the constitution?
So the president end up higher then the constitution and can contradict his oath of defending the constitution ?
I don't know that this is the case. I'm certainly not a legal expert, but my read on this is the supreme court is saying "some things" trigger the immunity. It seems sort of vague and those "some things" will surely be litigated. I don't think they are saying you can't bring a case against a former president. I'm guessing it will take decades to sort this decision out.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.
pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you might have money entering an account? but nothing can be used to show what that money was for without encroaching on offi
Not really a comment on the legal side but there is a neccesary vital role for democracy in 'guarding the guardians'.
'We the people' have to support those who reflect our values and demand action backed with our votes. If we dont really care then why should they?
The ruling is madness and just openly counting on the Democrats to be spineless.
Just direct the DoJ to arrest Trump tomorrow for questioning for the billion tax frauds he’s undoubtedly committed.
“As per the power SCOTUS just granted me. -Biden”
Let’s arrest the Republican Congressmen and Justices while we are at it.
All official acts.
Just FFS
Over empowering 1 individual is never a good idea .
Let’s be China , hourray !
The ruling is madness and just openly counting on the Democrats to be spineless.
Just direct the DoJ to arrest Trump tomorrow for questioning for the billion tax frauds heÂ’s undoubtedly committed.
“As per the power SCOTUS just granted me. -Biden”
No. That is not nearly enough. We need an immediate test-case that gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS.
Biden needs to order Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. (No motivation for this action need be given, as SCOTUS just ruled. But lying about the integrity of the 2020 election, and then using that lie to incite a violent storming of the Capital that would stop the certification of said election is not a bad motive for those who demand one.)
The mental midgets who are applauding this ruling will then have to eat the **** that they produced. It would be perfect.
The current court would, most likely, rule hypocritically against Biden. Fine. AS THEY SHOULD. But at least we then have legal precedent that POTUS cannot have a political rival assassinated. That arrow needs to be out of the quiver before Trump is elected. Or he will use it. 100%. (The dumb mother****er is already calling for televised military tribunals for “traitors” like Liz Cheney. Jesus****ingChrist.)
I'm sure many people are thinking, "No one as POTUS would order the assassination of a political rival, so it's never gonna matter." (Which is basically what dumbass Roberts wrote lambasting the dissent as “fear-mongering”. That idiot clearly does not understand the pathology that afflicts and drives Trump.)
Just like happened on 9/11, they (the 6 idiots on the SCOTUS) are suffering from a failure of imagination and are projecting their own morality onto Trump. "No one would ever fly a plane into a building to their fiery death. That would be crazy!" "No one woujd ever order the murder of a political rival. That would be crazy!" Trump would absolutely have a threat to his office killed, and dress it up as something that had to be done to save the country. 100%. That is who he is. He has been telling the world this in no uncertain terms for the past 8 years. And millions of his ******* supporters expect exactly that from him. It is a very dangerous time.
MrDavitWilliam is arrive.
Just like happened on 9/11, they (the 6 idiots on the SCOTUS) are suffering from a failure of imagination and are projecting their own morality onto Trump. "No one would ever fly a plane into a building to their fiery death. That would be crazy!" "No one woujd ever order the murder of a political rival. That would be crazy!"
Thanks to this idiot the DroolTards at FoxNews have paraded out for their simps to listen to, we can add “No one would ever claim a bribe is an official act, that would be crazy!”
At about the 3:50 mark she’s says, “I cannot imagine a POTUS would claim a bribe is an official act”. Just because you cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it won’t happen, idiot. Would you have ever imagined a POTUS would refuse to accept the results of an election and send an angry, armed mob to the Capitol to stop the certification of said election? Of course not. But that’s where we are with a pathological monster like Trump you ****ing moron.
MrDavitWilliam is arrive.
People who cannot imagine such easily imaginable things should never have been allowed to write a consitution that is still being worshiped centuries later.
Thanks to this idiot the DroolTards at FoxNews have paraded out for their simps to listen to, we can add “No one would ever claim a bribe is an official act, that would be crazy!”
At about the 3:50 mark she’s says, “I cannot imagine a POTUS would claim a bribe is an official act”. Just because you cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it won’t happen, idiot. Would you have ever imagined a POTUS would refuse to accept the results of an election and send an ang
The pardon, or the veto, or the whatever would be the official act. The bribe would be the motive, which according to this opinion can't be considered.
The pardon, or the veto, or the whatever would be the official act. The bribe would be the motive, which according to this opinion can't be considered.
The act of accepting money as consideration for performing an official act would not itself be an official act. So the prosecution would be for accepting the bribe, not for granting the pardon.
For the case of ordering assassination of a political rival, that wouldn't be a lawful order so the military wouldn't carry it out. And if the president had a private army loyal to him that would carry out such orders, that would be clearly outside his official capacity as president, so not subject to immunity.
