• farcaster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      4 months ago

      Are you saying it might be a crime for a President to unilaterally invent a new law and make the federal government enforce it? Well, you see…

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        No just unconstitutional which is what the scotus exists to make judgments about. They just take it upon themselves to judge everything else too…

    • xenomor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You are confusing the United States that existed until this decision with the United States that exists after this decision. As long as it’s an official act, the president can now do whatever it wants. If the supremes court objects, the president and threaten or assassinate the justices as long as it’s an official act. The President is now effectively a king. Read Sotomayor’s dissent in this decision. She explicitly states this.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s the thing, for the executive branch, passing laws is not an official act. It’s outside that branch of government. That’s what the Legislative branch does.

        It would be like Biden overturning a court ruling. That’s the Judicial branch, not your dance.

        • xenomor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          I get it. This is how government functions according to the constitution. Please understand however, under this new interpretation there is no effective legal check on the executive doing anything at all. Yes, it’s not official for the president to do that, but there is no enforcement mechanism, and the president now has authority to coerce anyone or any institution. I know it is difficult to grasp the implications of that, but that is in fact what the Supreme Court did today.

          • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            That’s the plan right, that’s part of Project 2025, to instantiate Unitary Executive Theory to make everything they do legal regardless of courts and impeachment trials.

        • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          So in your opinion, did they just reaffirm something like the presumption of innocence but it’s tailored for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people? So he has “The presumption of immunity” when making otherwise illegal orders, until it’s otherwise determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            It protects any official action.

            So, for example, the notorious drone strikes that Obama ordered which killed a bunch of innocent people.

            As commander in chief, that’s an official act, he would have immunity.

            Bush and Abu Ghraib torture? Same.

            • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.

              It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.

              Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times

              • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                Oh, I never meant to bring Trump into it, just that Obama continued Bush’s drone program and in a perfect world it would have all been illegal… but not if the President does it. ;)

      • FatCrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        I would rather he just pack the bench to 50 seats, one for each state, fast track nominations, and force congress to stay in session until a full court is appointed by putting hoteling them in the vicinity and only allowing them movement between hotels and congressional chambers. This would be in his power and immune as official acts after all.