SCOTUS

[NattyBohChamps04]

I'm pretty sure the scene in the movie was about a fake orgasm. I used the EPA as a step further, and as a joke that didn't work, I guess.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you say. I just wonder where the real expertise will come from, how it will be implemented, and how the courts will determine the manner in which it should be evaluated when confronted with competing interests and viewpoints. Only time will tell. But the reality that the world has very complicated problems will remain.

I was identifying with the little old lady at the end of the clip. I think it was Rob Reiner's mother.

And I'm hoping the country that was able to put men on the moon, or at least create convincing video coverage faking a moonwalk, will be able to scrounge up some expertise. EPA is an example of a pretty good agency with what seems like some pretty good experts. So there is hope.

That's what we were trying to do before the Chevron ruling with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately the EPA is now potentially toothless along with any other agency - if Congress didn't make a law regarding a very specific regulation, then they can't do jack.

With the new ruling, the judicial branch gets to be the expert. So if you get a liberal judge interpreting a bump stock ban? That's your new expert. Judge interpreting whether a drug is safe or safe enough? That's your new expert. Will they bring in actual experts to testify? Who knows.

A lot of libertarians are in for a nasty surprise. They caught the car with this one, just like Roe v Wade.

Settled law for decades that both liberals and conservatives agreed upon - gone in a puff of smoke.

[a fan]

I'm pretty sure the scene in the movie was about a fake orgasm. I used the EPA as a step further, and as a joke that didn't work, I guess.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you say. I just wonder where the real expertise will come from, how it will be implemented, and how the courts will determine the manner in which it should be evaluated when confronted with competing interests and viewpoints. Only time will tell. But the reality that the world has very complicated problems will remain.

I was identifying with the little old lady at the end of the clip. I think it was Rob Reiner's mother.

And I'm hoping the country that was able to put men on the moon, or at least create convincing video coverage faking a moonwalk, will be able to scrounge up some expertise. EPA is an example of a pretty good agency with what seems like some pretty good experts. So there is hope.

That's what we were trying to do before the Chevron ruling with varying degrees of success. Unfortunately the EPA is now potentially toothless along with any other agency - if Congress didn't make a law regarding a very specific regulation, then they can't do jack.

With the new ruling, the judicial branch gets to be the expert. So if you get a liberal judge interpreting a bump stock ban? That's your new expert. Judge interpreting whether a drug is safe or safe enough? That's your new expert. Will they bring in actual experts to testify? Who knows.

A lot of libertarians are in for a nasty surprise. They caught the car with this one, just like Roe v Wade.

Settled law for decades that both liberals and conservatives agreed upon - gone in a puff of smoke.

That's exactly it. Libertarians are morons. And as I've said 1,000 times, when you start asking a libertarian questions, you find REAL fast that their entire economic existence depends on big government. Every freaking time.

Listening to the arguments put forth on X are just painful. They tell us that with Chevron, an unelected "appointed official" makes the interpretation of a regulation.

Fellas....where the F do these people think Judges come from? Does the SCOTUS fall from the sky? Or are all of our Federal Judges (checks notes) appointed?

We're seeing the result of our broken education system over and over and over.

The ENTIRE reason that some (not all) conservatives are cheering is that, as Natty points out, these citizens are too stupid to imagine a liberal judge making the decision. They think that because at right this minute, the far right has the SCOTUS, this is a permanent state of affairs, and that we don't have liberal judges on the bench. So yes, if folks think it's smart to let a liberal interpret gun regulations?

Agree to disagree.


This is going to royally F, as it always does, the poor in America. Same as it ever was. Hope you boys like heavy metals in your water. Because the same crew that decided that a corporation is a person in Citizens United----which allows Chinese and Russian Shareholders to have a voice in our elections......is now in charge of the EPA, DoE, and every other Federal Department. Not excited at all.

[MDlaxfan76]

well, Presidents are now "kings above the law".

What could go wrong?

[ggait]

The holding is not that surprising. There’s already civil immunity within the “outer perimeter” under the Fitzgerald case. So hard to argue that wouldn’t be the case for criminal too.

The real substance is the timing. Thanks to the SCOTUS slow roll, Trump walks if he beats Sleepy Joe.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

[dislaxxic]

Eliminating "intent" from a president's "official acts" absolutely creates a king. A king and his solicitors can come up with fuzzy "intent" meant to "protect liberty" of some such other broadly interpreted nonsense...makes this a very dangerous place created (yes, from whole cloth) for our country.

Seems in many respects this conservative majority has created a carve-out for the guy that created their majority...

Could they have worried what Sleepy Joe might do now in HIS "official duties"??

..

[njbill]

Well, it does give immunity to Joe if he makes a determination, discharging his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, that Donald Trump is a danger to the United States and should be executed by SEAL Team 6.

That’s what the decision says. Crazy world we live in.

No, Joe wouldn’t do that. But if Trump is reelected, there is a serious concern that he will use this decision to engage in the most nefarious conduct. Would he have political opponents executed? I don’t think it’s out of the question. Some people think he had Jeffrey Epstein executed so he wouldn’t spill the beans about him.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Welp seems like the ship “America As We Have Known It” has sailed! The next 75 years won’t look like the last 75! I called it!!

[njbill]

Interestingly, under today’s decision, Nixon didn’t commit any crimes.

[Kismet]

I guess that Tricky Dicky was right all along according to the current SCOTUS

[Seacoaster(1)]

well, Presidents are now "kings above the law".

What could go wrong?

We can palaver about this as long as we want. But the above may be the best summary of the case.

[njbill]

To elaborate, remember that Nixon broke into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. He had his adversaries wire tapped. Famously, he broke into the DNC headquarters. He had his enemies audited by the IRS.

Under today’s decision, a president has immunity for all of these things. Any question that Trump will abuse his “powers” to a much greater degree than Nixon did?

[SCLaxAttack]

To elaborate, remember that Nixon broke into Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. He had his adversaries wire tapped. Famously, he broke into the DNC headquarters. He had his enemies audited by the IRS.

Under today’s decision, a president has immunity for all of these things. Any question that Trump will abuse his “powers” to a much greater degree than Nixon did?

Bannon has four months with nothing to do but sit and scheme.

[njbill]

I heard that Danbury prison had to bring in extra delousing equipment for Bannon today. Usually that process only takes a few minutes, but for Bannon they have budgeted three hours.

[youthathletics]

well, Presidents are now "kings above the law".

What could go wrong?

Just look at what Joe is and has been getting away with.

[dislaxxic]

well, Presidents are now "kings above the law".

What could go wrong?

Just look at what Joe is and has been getting away with.

...and what he can get away with between now and January 20, 2025...

..

[a fan]

well, Presidents are now "kings above the law".

What could go wrong?

Just look at what Joe is and has been getting away with.

...and what he can get away with between now and January 20, 2025...

..

Ya gotta admit. It would be more than a little funny if this ruling turned Biden into a tyrant who uses the full power of office to stay.

Or, i case folks have forgotten......Kamala, if BIden passes.

I would cheer that on, and enjoy the irony of Republicans regretting that they caught the car with this ruling.

[njbill]

While this is a terrible decision (though expected), some commentators are already saying it could prove to be a boon for the Biden campaign because it will be very easy to persuade people that Trump will abuse his powers in a second term and then claim immunity.

Plus, the decision goes beyond what the average American (if there is such a person anymore) thinks is “right.” Nobody wants a president who is above the law.

Not sure that this ruling will energize Democratic voters to the extent Dobbs did, but it may have the potential to be close.

[OCanada]

Biden now has vastly expanded powers to act as President in a way he could not yesterday.

[ggait]

"President Biden -- we have Seal Team Six on line #2..."

As Trump has taught us, a crazy fascist president already has the power to self-pardon. Which we all know a re-elected Trump would of course do on 1/20/2029.

Thus the only thing this case theoretically applies to is future state law crimes done by a president arguably acting in his official capacity.

So this case is really just about the timing and only about Trump. It will have little long term impact beyond the Trump crime family. Despite being complete bull shirt.

I could see some good lawless crazy king commercials coming out of this stupid decision.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?