Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with “correct”? Setting that aside for a second, I’ll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than “Conservative Party go Brrrrr”. Say that out loud a few times: “it’s legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity”. This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it’s pretty short) and you’ll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes… I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it’s a majority doesn’t make them right.
Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
This argument doesn’t go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn’t matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked…) but Sotomayor’s legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to “what’s an official act” will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won’t bother clearing anything - he’ll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He’s already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn’t mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He’s not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don’t play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from “First day dictator Donny” and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They’ve created their own monster.
My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole “basement dweller” part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.
So, we’re allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It’s just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller” compared to “a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented” in terms of “we better pay attention”
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
[you agree with] conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
BTW, I never called you this.
“Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:”
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn’t even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller,” that doesn’t imply you think that about me.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
You’re projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I’m not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with “correct”? Setting that aside for a second, I’ll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than “Conservative Party go Brrrrr”. Say that out loud a few times: “it’s legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity”. This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it’s pretty short) and you’ll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes… I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it’s a majority doesn’t make them right.
This argument doesn’t go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn’t matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked…) but Sotomayor’s legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to “what’s an official act” will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won’t bother clearing anything - he’ll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He’s already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn’t mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He’s not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don’t play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from “First day dictator Donny” and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They’ve created their own monster.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole “basement dweller” part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.
So, we’re allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It’s just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller” compared to “a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented” in terms of “we better pay attention”
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
“Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:”
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn’t even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller,” that doesn’t imply you think that about me.
You’re projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I’m not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
Apologies if it came off that way. Truly meant that as a generalization and pretty much include myself in the snark if it matters at this point…
Apology accepted. I also apologize for snarking back. Lol