volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@Hyolobrika sure, I just wanted to make sure to cite my source.

But I go one step farther, as the SCOTUS emphasizes that only legal acts can be official.

Therefore, I phrase it as, "immunity for [legal] acts"

It's not the sky falling to say that.

@AltonDooley

@dcdeejay and it needs to be clear that even in this specific case the Supreme Court pointed out that allegations in the indictment are outside of the scope of official business and therefore subject to prosecution.

I'd say that unfortunately, too many people are paying attention, but to folks who aren't giving them accurate information.

This opinion paved the way for Trump to be prosecuted for some of the allegations in this case. We could have skipped all of this had Biden's administration not overreached and had instead stuck to those allegations.

@Hyolobrika well it's complicated, and that's part of my reply to @hasani

The Supreme Court does make rules. BUT, it can only apply the rules to itself. Otherwise, the rules it makes are subject to engagement with the other branches, including the rules that Congress makes for lower courts.

So yes, the Supreme Court has the final say in the rules. It's just that, often enough the rules made by the Supremes are subject to being ignored, and legitimately at that.

@hasani keep in mind that the Supreme Court makes the rules but coequality points out that they can't actually enforce the rules they make.

If they write a rule that the other branches don't bother recognizing or enforcing, is that really particularly final in any practical sense?

That's how this was set up, to ensure that the Court had no power to enforce bad rules.

@dcdeejay but that's ALWAYS the case anyway. The courts can ALWAYS make such a determination regardless of this ruling.

Judges are free to throw out cases. If we assume judges are so corrupt then this is all moot anyway.

All this says is that if the president is found to be acting legally, then he can't be prosecuted for it.

It's largely a procedural question, and it always was.

@Hyolobrika well, they explained at length, but some key quotes may be:

"The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office."

"If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so."

The ruling is absolutely clear: if the president subverts laws he is prosecutable.

This case was never about subversion of laws, though a lot of loudmouths claimed (and claim) otherwise.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

@AltonDooley

@dcdeejay where do you see a statute authorizing the president to kill all of the justices?

Without such legal authority, SCOTUS says it wouldn't be official.

@KimPerales that's not an accurate description of what the ruling said, though.

If anything, the end of Chevron STRENGTHENS the administrative state by pushing it to be on more solid, more sustainable ground, where different judges won't be secondguessing and reversing regs based on perceptions of ambiguity and reasonableness.

Remember, Chevron is called that because it was a case that ruled in favor of the petro corporation. That should say a lot!

@Crystal_Fish_Caves keep in mind that Biden's legal strategies are what lead to the ruling in the first place.

The prosecutors didn't have to go into those weeds to charge and try Trump. They made the decision to do that, and the Supreme Court ruling emphasized it.

What could Biden do? He could have never gone this route in the first place, charge Trump with things clearly outside of official business, and this could all have been done by now.

@AltonDooley EXACTLY, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court ruling tried to emphasize, that so many people are missing.

SCOTUS emphasized in their opinion that subversion of laws is no grounds for immunity. The president only has immunity from prosecution for actually legal things.

So many don't understand what this case was about, since there was so much misreporting about it.

@TruthSandwich

Right, but if you're not going to get such an amendment passed, that's reflective of the popular rejection of this idea that the sky is falling over this opinion.

(And that's setting aside that the proposed amendment misunderstands what the Supreme Court actually ruled)

There isn't support to pass the amendment because the general public hasn't been compelled to demand it.

Never forget the role of the public here.
@davidaugust

@david1 he's often described as an institutionalist, putting weight on the operation of the Court even above and beyond the more doctrinal approaches you list.

But that includes being more concerned with the Court than any party.

There's plenty to criticize the guy over, but his work on the Court doesn't really match the idea that he's a partisan Republican if you read through his opinions and processes.

@hasani no. The Supreme Court has no say over the Legislative branch's impeachment prerogative.

They have no ability to make such a nullification.

@stylinstainless how do you feel about Putin's cabinet Picks? You seem to know a lot about him.

@TotalSonic we can't address the problems of homelessness and helping homeless people if we are busy arguing that criminalizing sleeping in certain places is criminalizing homelessness.

It's not.

So people arguing that clearly factually false statement are not going to get much purchase as they try to promote their causes.

It's a counterproductive position to take because instead of getting together behind helping the homeless instead you end up fighting about how factually incorrect it is.

@TotalSonic nobody is criminalizing homelessness.

If you frame it that way you're not helping, you're just promoting this idea that most people know is false.

@marynelson8 kind of a ignore the man behind the curtain sort of a response, yeah?

@JPummil they didn't.

That's not what happened at all.

If you want to shore up the laws on this, that's fine, look at Congress to enact legislation. Not to the Supreme Court.

@TheConversationUS

@stylinstainless how do you figure?

From complaints over executive performance through legal issues, I don't know how you can say that.

@stylinstainless have you noticed how the people that Biden surrounds himself are actually kind of dumb?

No, both of these guys are ridiculous and really unqualified. Both of those two are just not worth voting for, even based on the idiots they surround themselves with.