U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

I mean, they did call them Supreme.

I mean the kind of regulatory state needed to run a modern economy just wasn't contemplated period when the Constitution was written. It has its drawbacks, but I don't think doing away with it is going to be the kind of fun party even conservatives think they want. People benefit from regulations in a lot of invisible ways. Yes, there's some bloat, but I wouldn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater etc.

Kind of interesting that the S&P is flat. No big reaction to the news.

SCOTUS hasn't given them permission yet to update their index

Trump win means massive inflation but also massive corporate tax cuts, so it's kind of a wash

I more meant because ending Chevron deference is supposed to be some big business bonanza, finally cut some of that regulatory red tape etc.

Wasn’t “Robert’s the Institutionalist” worried once about the case load on the lower courts?

xp

lost track of which thread I'm on...

no, he said "case slowed"

https://i.imgur.com/vHadabd.jpg

he's thinking about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court!!

Shot:

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts in the "Chevron" decision: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Chaser: pic.twitter.com/SHcsDZLz0R

— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) June 28, 2024

It's fine. I often confuse Neil Gorsuch with horse glue.

It's honestly a little comical that Roberts is talking about the competence of judges in interpreting statutes when Justice Gorsuch just referred 5 times in a recent opinion to "nitrous oxide" when he meant "nitrogen oxide."

It's honestly a little comical that Roberts is talking about the competence of judges in interpreting statutes when Justice Gorsuch just referred 5 times in a recent opinion to "nitrous oxide" when he meant "nitrogen oxide."

a laughable mistake indeed

If only he'd accidentally written amyl nitrite instead

The problem with Agencies writing law is that they are subject to the whims of whomever is in office. Working through the courts via challenges to "policy" is cumbersome and not at all what a) the founders could have imagined and b) efficient at all.

But then again, no one seems to have a better idea of how to work the leviathan.

(xp)

the law being subject to the people recently elected into office is also the premise of democracy, though.

i think Congress delegating the details to executive agencies, however flawed, is wayyyy more workable than the idea that they either have to put every detail into the laws instructing those agencies, or watch the agency's policies on anything ambiguous be adjudicated by judges who are also political appointees but a) know nothing about the subjects in question and b) are appointed for life. also those right now a majority of those judges are right-wing ideologues so the results of that adjudication promise to be dystopian at a minimum.

The problem with Agencies writing law is that they are subject to the whims of whomever is in office.

yes and no.. there's a whole cadre of career technocrats that work behind the scenes, no matter who's in office - leaving Congress to clarify regulations they nothing about, then to defer to judges who also know shit-all about, like, soil supplements or launching satellites or rural dam policy seems like a really bad idea

though I think Stephen Miller et al have a plan to fire EVERY qualified gov't expert and either make them beg for their job back, or they'll be replaced one of Don Jr. hunting buddies

🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. https://t.co/ovLYlcsF4s

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) July 1, 2024

The highest court is so cooked

fucking hell

Roberts's majority opinion articulates the Court's view of where the line is, and remands to the district court to decide, in light of that ruling, which of the charges in the indictment can go forward.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024

I'm not sure what the difference is b/w 'official' and 'unofficial' other than "what John Roberts sez so"

Biden should exercise his new superpowers and order the assassination of the Sinister Six.

Turns out Nixon didn't need a pardon after all

when you're famous they let you do it

this doesn't end the case, it goes back to the judge to make a ruling on whether the acts involved were official or unofficial

All the pieces really are coming into place for a full on fascist regime. Good job USA

And what judge might that be? Hmmm xp

it's clear the president has to have trump killed as a presidential act in order to save democracy as the founders understood it.

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Note the 'his'

Judge Chutkin?

xxp

so uhh what does an "official act" mean here? does inciting an insurrection, stealing classified docs, pressuring a Secretary of State to "find votes" count as an "official" act?

that's what I asked a few minutes ago

not unless those things were scheduled in his Outlook

when you're saving democracy things get real

does this mean that Biden could actually order the assassination of Trump under the guise of "saving the country" and it would all be very legal and very cool??

This ruling applies to the Jan 6 case and that will be sent back to Chutkin to decide whether some or all of it falls under unofficial acts. This would not apply to the documents case which involves actions that happened when Trump wasn't president.

does this mean that Biden could actually order the assassination of Trump under the guise of "saving the country" and it would all be very legal and very cool??

― frogbs,

No, because Biden isn't a Republican president protected by a Republican SCOTUS majority.

we're fucked

does this mean that Biden could actually order the assassination of Trump under the guise of "saving the country" and it would all be very legal and very cool??

Honestly, it seems that way to me. Charge him with insurrection, throw him in a black site for interrogation. Kill anyone who objects.

there is a part of me that says the empowered in this country has always believed and intended to act re the president in the way described in this decision, this only makes the quiet part loud. the other part of me says burn this fake scotus court to the ground.

I mean I had no hopes of any of these other cases even being tried in the first place but it's pretty scary what this means when Trump takes over in 2025, all his revenge and retribution fantasies can just continue unchecked

yeah "blacksite your opponent before he gets a shot at blacksiting you" seems not only possible but imperative.

even in the bad old days scotus might call such a decision an absurdity, but here we are.

ope, sorry, even though all of this happened on tv on january 6 2021 and we all saw it, it took too long, 3.5 years and counting, for the legal system to do jackshit, so we just have to let the people decide now! sorry!! dangit, can't believe it took that long, time really slipped, whoooooops!!!

let's see, we all saw trump murder a guy on 5th ave, let's go ahead and set up that preliminary trial briefing for....the year 2094. no let's make that a round year 2100. no let's make that 2101, so we can get started on the first day of the new century? wait is the new century 2100 or 2101? a guy named pplains used to ask these questions, many ages ago. let's just do 2150