Honest answer: we don’t fucking know. The discarding of Chevron, coupled with the determination a rule may be challenged from the moment of harm and not from the moment the rule was made, throws more or less the entirety of administrative law - the basis of a regulatory system - into flux.
Like, when I say the impact of the last week of rulings can’t be understated, I mean it because Chevron was like…a foundational thing for administrative law for the last four decades.
Add into that the determination that we can’t prosecute a president who commits a crime if it’s an official act, coupled with the absolute lack of definition as to what constitutes an official act, and we have no fucking clue.
Also, little pissed the reasoning for the latter was “We don’t want a president to be concerned about criminal culpability because it may stop them from acting!” and I mean, actually, yes, I want our executive to be considering whether they’re breaking the fucking law before acting.
It’s like “The President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws, so if he has to break a few of those laws to do so, you know, sometimes you gotta kill the patient to cure the disease.”
And with all respect to my friends in the military and who have served in the military but “The military won’t obey an illegal order” is not comforting because I have met a number of members of our military who absolutely fucking will.
Like, I know a lot of good servicemembers who will balk at plainly illegal and immoral orders. But I also know some guys who completely made me understand how that whole “just following orders” thing got started
Yep.
The people who were surprised by the "just following orders" thing always confused me. You have a rigid hierarchy and severe punishment for not following orders, so ... shouldn't it be assumed that many people will follow even horrific, illegal orders?
The illegality of the order also often gets more diffuse the further you go down the chain of command. The individual who carries out a task may not have any meaningful sense of how that and a hundred other mundane, logistical acts come together to constitute a high crime.
