• 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. ;)