1/ Just about every villian arc starts with the villain becoming completely corrupted because they knew they were doing bad things but for “good” and “necessary” reasons.
The Supreme Court is giving Trump unlimited power and I have a few thoughts on this.
1. How is their power to give?
To be able to give unlimited power, one must have it. And that poses questions about judicial power in a way that is incompatible with our (US) system of government
2/ The US revolution was basically predicated on two things:
1. No taxation without representation (something about Tea exports being taxed, but importing Tea from East India Company wasn’t)
2. Not being lorded over by a King ( see 1)
This ruling by the the Supreme Court flies in the face of this.
Even though the Magna Carter of 1215 was a document establishing rights of Barons (thus making the King somewhat accountable), it got the ball rolling against the “divine right of kings”
3/ With the Supreme Court saying in one hand, the president has “presumptive" immunity for “official" acts and in the other providing no test or definition of what an official act is, coupled with one cannot use an act of the president as evidence of a crime, this circular logic effectively creates a position that has no legal accountability.
And if congress thinks they can impeach and convict, then they are mistaken. First of all, to impeach you will need to gather evidence
4/ It becomes quite hard to gather evidence of the crime when the President can just issue blanket pardons to those with knowledge in his or her administration.
If congress goes ahead with impeachment, then the President can just go to SCOTUS and say: “Congress can't impeach a president without evidence” thereby nullifying the only check the legislative branch has on the executive.
@hasani no. The Supreme Court has no say over the Legislative branch's impeachment prerogative.
They have no ability to make such a nullification.
@volkris The Supreme Court makes the rules by having the final say. That's the flaw in the 3 co-equal branches form of government. They aren't co-equal
@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.
@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.
