Quote (Goomshill @ Jul 1 2024 09:05am)
Worth noting that this basically follows exactly what I said in whatever the fuck thread we walked through these legal arguments originally
the court simply have no authority to second guess the motives of the president or else they are inherently usurping his decision making and deliberative process. That goes not just for his personal intent, but the whole of his counsel from advisors, and the courts can't pry into their thoughts or beliefs even if its offered. And of course, he's immune for any official actions, a definition that has to be taken at a wide lens or else the government simply cannot function. The supreme court just echoed everything I said except they didn't set the boundaries of what is official vs unofficial, because after all that wasn't yet argued at any of the lower courts so they can't make determinations on individual claims, but they sure set guidances and limitations that make the conclusions obvious.
From a separation of powers standpoint it should have all been abundantly clear and if anything the real danger from this case is the fact 3 liberal justices would be willing to tear down the entire foundation of the separation of powers and open the door to basically eliminating the position of president. Which of course flies absolutely in the face of their ardent defense of the chevron doctrine that had expanded executive powers and given the president wide latitude to redefine laws, given away by the courts in the 80s. All this kind of works to expose just how utterly schizophrenic decisions can be when guided by bitter partisan interest (no 'respectfully' in any dissenting opinion here) rather than judicial philosophy
the whole topic is funny, no sitting president has ever been charged for a crime afaik. and the only one who was going to be was Nixon before that was shut down (correctly).
so it's once again the liberalols placing their hopes on some unprecedented event to save them.
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.