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.
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.
assuming you can get passed not discussing the "motive" which is the whole point of the bribe. how do you prove what the money is for and not just a donation?
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.
I suspect that someone with ZERO moral code like Trump, who has been playing in the margins his entire life and largely gotten away with it, would find a way to circumvent the military refusing the order. Or at a minimum would try like hell.
It wouldn’t be “Go kill X”, it would be “Go carry out this order” and X would end up dead as collateral damage.
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.
It is fine to disobey military leaders in the chain of command for unlawful orders, but I'm not clear if something coming from the President is necessarily unlawful. Perhaps it is and the president is simply immune from that. Imagining a scenario where the military team carries out this action, is found guilty of murder, and the president is untouchable. clown show.
It is fine to disobey military leaders in the chain of command for unlawful orders, but I'm not clear if something coming from the President is necessarily unlawful. Perhaps it is and the president is simply immune from that. Imagining a scenario where the military team carries out this action, is found guilty of murder, and the president is untouchable. clown show.
Trump’s entitled *******-in-chief Stephen Miller made it very clear during Trump’s term that, “The power of the President shall not be questioned.”
It’s obvious what that means. He’s going to order the military to do whatever the **** he wants, and he’s going to expect them to do it.
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.
This is legally debatable, and if Trump were prosecuted for accepting a bribe, he certainly would be arguing for a different interpretation of the SCOTUS's decision.
It's sort of mind boggling that we are even discussing this.
It took a guy totally devoid of a moral compass, millions of idiots that think he should be the most powerful person on earth, an entire party so utterly corrupt that they support every horrible thing he does, and a Supreme court that thinks all of this is just fine.
It's sort of mind boggling that we are even discussing this.
It took a guy totally devoid of a moral compass, millions of idiots that think he should be the most powerful person on earth, an entire party so utterly corrupt that they support every horrible thing he does, and a Supreme court that thinks all of this is just fine.
it also took a democratic party supporting his campaign in 2016 cuz they wanted him to be the repub nominee
then rigging the nomination for Hillary. then again in 2020 rigging the nomination again for Biden. then in 204 nominating a clearly mentally disabled Biden, with a terrible political record
The Supreme Court just proved Richard Nixon right.
Monday’s 6-3 ruling creates an imperial presidency Nixon would have loved.
This court seems to have found a way to interpret the law and facts
here to support the concept espoused by Nixon and his top aides that
the ends justify the means and if the president does it, it is not illegal.
“The President of the United States, would afterwards be liable
to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
But the majority has discarded such guidance, because it does not serve their purpose here.
The Supreme Court has signed off on a Trump takeover of the DOJ.
Supreme Court’s sweeping decision provided a stamp of approval for
one of the most dangerous parts of Trump’s second-term agenda: payback.
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 imm
How about when the President calls a press conference in the Rose Garden and says “In recognition of Donor X’s significant contribution, I hear by exercise my presidential discretion to officially pardon his brother”
Or “I have made the determination in my official capacity as commander in chief that my political rival is too dangerous to be left alive and must be terminated”.
edit: 25 minutes on the immunity ruling
Thoughts on this? From actual normal people not cultists please
Chevron came up over lunch with some tax lawyers and they were just like lol nothing is changing. The IRS has a lot more nukes in its arsenal to deter people from going to court.
Changes along the edges will get a lot of press and dramatically increase caseload but that’s because there are so many tax controversies in a given year, a small % increase going to court is enough to increase the caseload a lot.
Anyone have any thoughts on the Legal Eagle video posted?
Relying on dicta from a Supreme Court concurring opinion is not normally a basis for a decision at the trial level.
Dicta being a comment, observation, or suggestion made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve a case.
Joe Biden, in a Monday address calling for sweeping reforms of the US supreme court, said the recent decision granting some immunity to presidents from criminal prosecution makes them a king before the law.
...
Biden said he is proposing a new constitutional amendment that explicitly applies the criminal code to presidents. The conduct of Donald Trump demand legislative changes, he said.
“No other former president has asked for this kind of immunity and none should have been given it,” Biden said. “The president must be accountable to the law … We are a nation of laws, not kings and dictators.”
A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both the US House and Senate to agree to it, followed by the government of three-quarters of the states.
Biden also said that the scandals involving supreme court justices have caused public opinion to question the court’s fairness and independence and impeded its mission.
He said: “The supreme court’s current code of conduct is weak and even more frighteningly voluntary.”
Biden called for a binding code of conduct for the supreme court and term limits for justices, noting that the United States was the only western democracy that gives lifetime appointments to its high court.
About time …
If they loved king so much , why did they fight the loyalist so hard ?
Considering how polarized our country is now, I can't see another constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes unless it was regarding some massive foreign terrorist attack on the US or something similar
Considering how polarized our country is now, I can't see another constitutional amendment being passed in our lifetimes unless it was regarding some massive foreign terrorist attack on the US or something similar
They probably know this very well, but you have to start somewhere and you have to start the messaging.
The supreme court's decision on presidential immunity represents an enormous power grab by the court, it is basically placing itself as a power behind the throne. And due to the nature of how legal immunity works, the term "throne" in this sense is dangerously literal.
Even in a polarized environment, I suspect most US citizens would agree that the US should not have a supreme court that can hand their favorite presidents more power than king George III ever had. It renders the American Revolutionary War moot. Perhaps sometime in the future you can do something about that, if it is still possible.
Supreme Court hands rare LOSS to Trump.
I guess the question to the Missouri taxpayers is:
who authorized spending time and money to get involved in the
legal issues of a Presidential candidate (who isn't even a citizen of the state)?
SCOTUS with an emergency rule, allowed Virginia to continue to purge non citizens from voting rolls, after a district judge (nominated by Biden) , 4th circuit confirming, previously had interrupted the attempt.
SCOTUS with an emergency rule, allowed Virginia to continue to purge non citizens from voting rolls, after a district judge (nominated by Biden) , 4th circuit confirming, previously had interrupted the attempt.
Correction - they also allowed Virginia to purge citizens from the voting rolls. That was the important part here - no one has a problem with non-citizens being purged.
