The other thing is that it’s so lawless a decision that it cannot be respected as precedent. It feels like a Supreme Court that succeeds this one should ignore its rule against advisory opinions to immediately overturn this one without waiting for a case to come up to do it.
fundamentally being in the majority on Trump v US is immediately disqualifying for a supreme court justice. it declares yourself in opposition to the foundations of the American project of democracy and limited government. all six of them must be impeached and replaced.
Assuming we all live to see such a court come around, I think that Trump v US would be overturned & Chevron would be reinstated in remarkably short order.
Right, agreed. And there’s not time to lose. Lawless lower courts are going to use overturning Chevron plus Corner Post to tear up regulations from the whole history of the country. With those the opportunity to reinstate chevron will be near constant.
Since precedent has been tossed by this SCOTUS, why should it bind less corrupt future courts?
e.g. future decision ("Trump v. US was wrongfully decided because, Roberts Court, LOL")
and I know it's a standard lawsuit naming convention, but "Trump v. United States" is apt in so many ways
The scathing parts of the dissents are aimed at building up a philosophy for doing it
1) They don't respect Stare Decisis
2) They contradict each other in ways that are politically convenient for the majority
wrt #2 specifically, there's effectively zero legal consistency in any of this madness. It's all just Calvinball masquerading as jurisprudence. All of these decisions butt up against each other in incompatible ways, and there's simply no way forward EXCEPT overturning all of it in full.
Like, I am NAL, but I'm genuinely curious about how the fuck do you even teach this any of this at law school? There seems to be absolutely no way to instruct any of this logically or consistently because it's all so jumbled and self-conflicted that it borders on meaninglessness.
Regardless of the realities, the underlying logic of Trump v US is that the president must be allowed unregulated authority to use his powers of office however he sees fit, even corruptly. The logic of the regulatory cases is that the executive must have power to interpret law removed.
There are a few places, but Sotomayor points out that the majority in Trump has ruled against the "deeply rooted" tradition that no man is above the law and cites Dobbs to get the "deeply rooted" test in. Obviously about heightening the contradiction
Everything about the case is galling, but I'm still especially furious that Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to rule quickly and preemptively on the immunity question as he handed down the indictment and they, instead, twiddled their thumbs for 10 months.
In 50 years historians will talk about the Roberts Court with as much disdain as they speak about the Lochner Court. So interesting what that SOB Roberts said about that court in his confirmation hearing. Fucking hypocrite
Yeah, the Roberts Court will live in infamy. Both for its aggrandizement of judicial power for partisan ends and for the blatant corruption and derangement of democratic fairness in both its decisions and its makeup.
My great hope is that a reformed SCOTUS has a chance to do this on Trump’s appeal of his Jan. 6 case conviction (🤞). But Trump v. United States left little room for that trial to occur.
On the other hand, if we got Congress, I think a legislative effort to add a new amendment overturning Trump v US would be popular and could prime the pump for other necessary amendments (gender & sex equality, aff action gerrymandering, reasonable gun laws, campaign fin, separation church/state).
If Biden uses his presidential purge powers to rearrange the Supreme Court, Jack smith can just move for reargument and the court can vacate the earlier decision
