So as a general rule I agree with @hurricanexyz.bsky.social that we need a court to be able to rule on constitutionality, but I have no idea what we do when that very court is captured by people who disdain the constitution and those who are bound by it.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration at all to say the decision threatens the Republic. I might not have said so in 2015, before I saw how triumphantly lawless and autocratic the President could be, and how so many people would applaud it or at least shrug.
This is a body that has declared itself a super veto on all federal regulations from any time for any reason, and they’ve declared complete impunity for lawbreaking presidents who share their party. It really feels like a slow coup in robes.
Bribery is relevant to Trump v. US too
The dissent certainly thinks the majority's reasoning means you can't prosecute a president for taking bribes in exchange for a pardon, which just cannot possibly be right, if we know nothing else here we know that ain't right
It’s the timing that is key! If you give him money to take certain actions before he does so it is a bribe. If you do it after it is a gratuity and legal! Very exciting to see what happens if they occur at the same time!
The legalization of naked corruption is in some ways the most infuriating part. Willing to sacrifice the basic principles of justice and fair government for- for what? Crowning this grotesque caricature of a human being?
There was a time not too long ago that people said, with some reason, that while the Court were a bunch of partisan hacks, they weren't particularly invested in the personal success of Donald John Trump, specifically
Welp
The simpering lickspittle degradation defies description. "Yes, I will destroy the rule of law for Donald John Trump and clean his sneakers with my tongue", and for what? Because they think he can crush liberals better than they can?
Definitely, they’re clearly feeling an impunity they’ve never fully felt before, and you can see it in how goddamn sloppy they are. They don’t care about giving reasoning for the stuff they do anymore, it’s just the way it is because they say it.
Yep. Court-packing offers the tantalizing promise of taking power away from the usurpers without ever exactly destroying the institution, but I dunno, I kind of suspect that's a fantasy
One thing that makes me nervous about the resurgence of the court-packing talk is that it's not paired with "but first you absolutely must vote for Biden."
Like, sorry, that's the literal bare minimum that is required if you want to have this conversation.
It doesn’t even have to specifically be court packing, just “you need to elect democrats to office to rein in the most corrupt Supreme Court in American history.”
In a sense, this is the inverse of '16. McConnell held the SCOTUS seat open & the party responded accordingly. Now we have a situation where we can keep a lawless nazi from using these new executive powers & greenlighting Project 2025. Our side ought to be just as eager, even excited, to fight this.
Packing the court may be a tit for tat (an R trifecta might just do it back) but a) that’s better than the status quo still where Rs have power even we win elections and b) at least MAYBE at some point it will get absurd enough (someone has to expand it by 20) that we get a Constitutional amendment.
Yeah, as I conceive of court-packing (which I support, have supported since 2017) it's meant to be like
A means of forcing the Republicans into submission in the Judiciary Wars, setting up a peace treaty in the form of an amendment reworking Article III
Raising the alarm about the fugitive court has to be the first move because it needs to be an on-the-bus/off-the-bus moment
that we're no longer a constitutional democracy should figure prominently
