They only pretended to punt it back to Chutkan to make her do the dirty work of actually gutting the case, to be done on appeal if she refuses. I wouldn’t presume to know her personal calculus, but it would be entirely justified to instead resign in protest. This merits that kind of norm-shattering.
What they have tasked her to do is not law. They have directed her to engage in lawlessness. She does not have the power to defy them. But at some point it does become a legitimate question of what lines you’re willing to personally cross. Not saying she necessarily should. But it’d be justified.
Mmmmm fascinating
Would love to hear your somewhat more detailed thoughts about exactly why it's so bad (I don't disagree lol, I just think it's slightly interesting trying to articulate the precise problem)
It strikes at the core fundamental principles of the Constitution, the American system of government, the entire concept of the rule of law, in a way that is not simply erroneous, even grave error w/ severe consequences. It implicates incompatibility with following her own oath to the Constitution.
Hypothetical just to demonstrate the point there's such a line somewhere: five justices decree Methodism is now the official state church and direct district judges to enforce that ruling with injunctions shutting down all other houses of worship. That's not law and compliance is not being a court.
Right. I guess my question is what exactly you think the Court got wrong about the law. (I have my own Take, needless to say, but I'm curious to hear your perspective)
There's no legal basis for any of it. No constitutional text, no original public meaning, not even any reasonable basis in past precedents or having been validated by practice and acquiescence. Penumbras and emanations would be too kind. They just made it up and scarcely even pretended otherwise.
Like what is the constitutional justification for the idea that immune official acts can’t be used as evidence? What’s the justification for saying that courts cannot consider the president’s motive in performing official acts?
Right. I guess the reason I'm asking is just like
I dunno, on SOME level it must be true that if the president has actual legal authority to do X, then the president can't be prosecuted for doing X, even if X falls within the terms of a criminal statute.... right?
Forgot the legal term for a court going beyond its authority. Like if SCOTUS directed the president to attack China.
We need to be talking more about what courts can and can’t do.
Unfortunately "stopping a criminal prosecution because they think it's unlawful" is not beyond the ordinary authority of courts
(I am a big fan of the ultra vires approach to this Court in general)
Resigning is the wrong move and what they want. Chutkan should immediately start the trial and give a public statement that the immunity ruling is shit and will be ignored
Force them to enforce it.
