869
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 26 points 5 days ago

Didn't they just legalize "any" official action?

[-] [email protected] 59 points 5 days ago

Exactly, and that’s how this court is so tricky. By not fully defining what an “official act” is, they’re claiming the power to decide later. Because that very issue will inevitably reach them after some batshit district court ruling. So they ultimately get to decide regardless, and this court regularly makes up ahistorical and completely absurd justifications that don’t pass the smell test, so we’re doomed.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 5 days ago

Easy.

Republican: Legal. Democrat: Illegal.

[-] nehal3m 26 points 5 days ago
[-] [email protected] 29 points 5 days ago

They do, and it will only be "official" when a Republican does it. Once they control the courts, it's game over. Nothing short of unstacking the court will avert a fascist dictatorship.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an "official act" though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

They remanded to the lower courts to determine that. But like it does have some implication. They definitely did not say everything the president does is an official action.

[-] [email protected] 21 points 5 days ago

And who gets to decide if a lower court decision stands? You guessed it, the Supreme Court. This was always going to be their ultimate decision.

[-] Grandwolf319 2 points 4 days ago

So doesn’t that mean the US didn’t really ever have separation of powers? Sounds like the door to fascism wasn’t locked and we just used the honour system.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago

Yeah, that’s unfortunately right. So much of the American system is based on norms and ideals that we trusted our leaders to respect. The Supreme Court has seized their authority, and since they refuse to recognize Congressional oversight (the Chief Justice has regularly refused to appear before Congress), there’s very little we can do.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

Congress. Since Congress isn't functional, that means whatever the president does is now legal.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 5 days ago

Yes...any action the president takes and say it's part of his official duties is legal.

Biden doesn't have the balls to do what he needs to do right now.

The great experiment failed.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 days ago

As far as I can tell, yup. And by official, it basically means anything done while in office, so he could theoretically walk out onto Pennsylvania Avenue, spray a group of protestors holding signs with an M16, and walk back inside with no legal repercussions.

this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
869 points (99.0% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2286 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS