Kate Shaw: The more you read yesterday’s immunity decision, the more appalling it gets. My take: www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/o...

The more you read yesterday’s immunity decision, the more appalling it gets. My take: www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/o...

Opinion | The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidencywww.nytimes.com It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system.

"The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidency" by Kate Shaw" Gift link!

Opinion | The Supreme Court Creates a Lawless Presidencywww.nytimes.com It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system.

Thanks for the gift link! I will read this now, as I will not give any money to the NYT, as they are blatantly biased with their "tRump is kinda bad sometimes, BUT BIDEN IS SO OLD!!!!!!" coverage.

The worst part about it is that there is no immunity law to base the descicion, Under the same logic Roe v Wade was repealed this court is actually legislating and does it in a contradictory manner.

Cynical people always knew that "originalism" and "constitutionalism" were really just cover for "dowhatevermyrepublicanbuddieswantalism" They were right.

This Court has converted me to originalism. Going forward, the Supreme Court should have exactly the powers they had in 1789.

Not cynical people. HONEST people.

The idea that the Court is immune from regulation is nowhere in the Constitution. It is time for Congress to use its powers.

They probably don't want to do it because of politics. Dems could have done it for many years but they held out hope some weird hope that these conservatives weren't partisan despite the partisan actions. I wish people judged everyone the way dems judge the actions of conservatives.

I think there must be some cowardice and sclerotic thinking involved as well. Imagine if, for example, AOC were chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee instead of Durbin.

Your conclusion, "...a future Trump White House could become the site of a criminal enterprise that would make Richard Nixon’s plumbers unit look like child’s play." ... has a parallel: The corruption of these Justices makes Abe Fortas look squeaky clean.

Gonna be a lot of clean up on aisle SCOTUS once this clearly Bush vGore- style decision has outlived its necessity for these gremlins

The purpose of this law is to enable a Trump dictatorship. At that point all bets are off. Voting rights? Gone. Gerrymandering and disenfranchisement to keep Republicans in power. People need to stop thinking power will pendulum back to Democrats. The goal is permanent, one-party minority rule.

Wow, I didn't realize New York Times was writing accurate headlines these days.

The supreme court, 6 of 9 judges who are totally unbiased and not being paid off, ruled in favor of the person representing the party who paid them. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED!

I'm glad you mention the pardon power. I feel like that's not getting nearly enough, because while presidential immunity is a problem, the pardon power is what will really make it work.

Do we need to abandon a presidency in favor of the less power centric PM model? That sounds like a suggestion, but I have no idea if it could work in the US

I don't think it could be much worse

They’d just find a way to corrupt that model as well.

📌

This is the most obvious scheme to set up their seat of governance to support Trump, dictator on day 1

I wonder if they realize this could be used by a Democrat President to their advantage. Republicans need to realize these sort of things could be used by their opponents.

They probably know it’s a possibility, but they know it’s unlikely. It’s a high-risk, high-reward bet.

SCOTUS is now a majority band of criminals, with aboslotely no regard for the law that they are supposed to uphold!! They only answer to one man Trump and could give a shit about the rest of us, aor the Cosntitution! They have just declared Trump our new King!

Yes. I think it's clear that the majority is MUCH more concerned not with what Trump did to retain power after clearly losing an election but with the fact that he has been indicted for it. I doubt this would be their primary concern if a Democrat had done the exact same things.

🤬🤬🤬🤬 This sentiment, however, does not seem to be what a large part of his base want to hear, as many have expressed their dismay over his lack of action. l.smartnews.com/p-WSfZ8/5LupIB #SleepyJoe

"Biden Is Quiet Quitting": People Are Begging Joe Biden And Democrats To Do Something, ANYTHING, After The Supreme Court's "Immunity" Ruling (BuzzFeed)l.smartnews.com This week, the US Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for official acts he took during his presidency. Not o...

Yes: "It is now clear that [SCOTUS] believes...both courts and presidents stand beyond the reach of the law." But this means their "decision" is really a crime—a tyrannical act demanding intervention. Please call on the current, newly "immune" POTUS to pack the Court now. bsky.app/profile/flyi...

I think it's very dangerous to call these "decisions" or "rulings" instead of crimes, abuses, etc., and to grant them any legitimacy whatsoever. Neither SCOTUS nor anyone else has the right to create a king or a state of exception or shield of immunity for serious crimes. We can't concede that.

Genocide, slavery, empire, assassinations, Treasonous false flag attacks, biological fucking warfare (#GainofFunction), and NOW----just now, only now----they notice some lawlessness...

strike down the ruling once the six “conservative” justices are kicked off or otherwise removed…Seal Team 6 may get some new orders

It's literally a criminal act since the purpose is obstruction of justice. The inclusion of an otherwise atopical clause banning evidence is the tell. That has nothing to do with the case they were hearing. It's about killing the guilty verdict in New York. And it's without legal foundation.

📌

NYT? lmao Might want to consider freelance.

I'm just about sick reading all these opinions foretelliing woe and desolation. Shouldn't we wait on what the argument will be concerning what should be deemed an official act...?

Did you read all of the decision?

Yeah. I also know what Barret wrote might help Smith out a lot when she laid out examples as to what crimes might still be prosecutable. So I'm not throwing in the towel yet.

I think the people doing the most panicking probably are operating on headlines, not facts. But the bottom line is still that it's ok to crime if you're doing it officially. "Wait and see" hasn't worked out too well, either. But I'm a foolish optimist.

Let's just see what the courts say about official acts. I'm pretty sure the hush-money still stands, as well as the documents case. And Smith has something big he's sitting on.

I dunno, if Biden will only wield the power he has now been given, we could knock this shit right out.

hammerhead

In the future presidents can simply shape illegal activities to fit the description of an official act. For example, having a political opponent assassinated in order to save democracy. Protecting the country is covered under Article 1, right?

What do we do at the mouth of change at that terrible mouth wreathed in smoke, fog, and shadow lit with its bewildering neon array. What do we do? By the late Chrissy 🏳️‍🌈😢

Post