End of Chevron doctrine

[The Sultan]

Wake and bake?

I'm thinking the Ambien hasn't completely worn off.

[forgetful]

After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.

For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:

1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.

Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:

The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."

The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"

Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.

Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."

Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.

I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.

[cheebs09]

Wake and bake?

[Skatastrophy]

Maybe the current president will neuter the power of the office of the president.

[rocky_warrior]

After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance.

Thanks for the analysis, you have me reconsidering too.  I talked to a JD friend yesterday, but he had not read through it yet either.

[MU82]

After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.

For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:

1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.

Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:

The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."

The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"

Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.

Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."

Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.

I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.

Glad you realized this, forgetful. I was surprised by your earlier stance.

It was an outrageous decision that basically makes it legal for one U.S. citizen to commit just about any crime he or she wants to commit.

The R's are celebrating now, but if the situation were reversed - a D ex-president had been charged with these serious crimes and a left-leaning court had said he was immune to prosecution - the R's would be going absolutely batsh!t.

It's like when the D's changed the rules to make only a simple majority necessary for the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS justice. They liked it at the time, but it has come back to bite them on the keister. Be careful what you ask for.

[Pakuni]

After reading the full decision. I am going to change my previous stance. The decision is egregious in giving the President absolute immunity for any actions that are within his "constitutional powers." They went on to very very broadly describe what constitutes "constitutional powers," including absolute immunity for any discussions with his appointed officials, and with their removal, regardless of whether the discussions/removal grossly violate law. That does indeed place the president above the law.

For instance, according to the decision, it would be well within his powers to:

1. Schedule a meeting with military and justice officials, including rank and file military, and order them to assassinate his political opponents, and threaten that they too may be eliminated and their lives ruined if they do not enact his policies. And, in addition to threatening them, bribe them to carry out said actions.

Such an action would be considered lawful, and the President could not be prosecuted for any of those clearly illegal actions, according to the decision, because:

The course may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law."

The Presidents "power to remove executive officers of the Unites States whom he has appointed may not be regulated by Congress or reviewed by the courts"

Further, the language is clear in providing "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute" as an official action" that the President can then deem anyone a target of an investigation and "prioritize how aggressively to pursue legal actions against the defendants," including if they see fit to deem them a significant enough threat to be shot on sight.

Any bribes or threats of removal, would be immune under the new guidance in this decision that concludes discussions with military/justice officials, in relation to anything that is an official act (e.g. criminal prosecution involving his opponents being a threat to the nations security) and that vests in his exclusive constitutional authority, are "absolutely immune from prosecution."

Including if they "violate a generally applicable law," like murder and bribery.

I don't think anyone here believes that the above is in anyway remotely consistent with the constitution, and the original ideas of the founding fathers, who greatly feared tyranny, and an overly powerful individual leader.

A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."

2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf

Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.

To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.

[lawdog77]

Pak is correct from my reading as well. Bad facts make bad law.

[The Sultan]

A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."

2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf

Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.

To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.

I think the vagueness is intentional because there wasn't a specific case based on facts brought to the court.

[forgetful]

A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."

2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf

Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.

To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.

The reasons I would disagree with your thoughts (which I think are reasonable) are as follows. And remember, I am not an attorney, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

1. Your point is correct. They are saying that such actions are consistent with the constitutional authority given to the President.

2. The Military officials carrying out the actions could be tried and convicted, but the President could not, especially if the discussion was that this was a "Criminal Investigation" and that the subjects were deemed extremely dangerous to warrant considering them immediate dangers and supporting possible shoot on sight. The ruling clearly articulates that any discussion, whether involving illegal actions or not, that pertain to "criminal investigations" are within the constitutionally protected scope of the President and confers absolute immunity. That immunity does not convey to the individuals that may carry out said actions, but the decision reiterates that Presidential Pardon's are absolutely protected.

3. There is nuance here. Meeting with said individuals and ordering them to assassinate his rivals would be illegal as you say (but according to Trump's attorneys immune from prosecution unless impeached and convicted by the Senate). But meeting with the same said individuals and saying their actions amount to treason (see Elizabeth Cheney) and that they need to be aggressively investigated and prosecuted immediately, while also deeming them exceptionally armed and dangerous to warrant them an immediate threat to all around them (and possibly warranting shot on sight), would be protected by this decision. As would threatening removal from their post/office for any individuals that refused his decisions, and even extending to bribery.

The reason it would be permitted actually pertains to the exact clauses you identify. This decision says it is the President's constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law with "exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute."

Your arguments that these are illegal actions are moot with respect to charging the President (they are not moot to charging those that carry out the actions), as the Decision states, "The courts may not "deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law," and gives exceptionally broad discretion to the President to act within what they view as upholding and protecting the constitution.

My examples are extreme, but consistent with the decision.

And for the record, Trump's attorneys did say in Oral arguments, that if a President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate their rivals, they would be immune to prosecution, even after leaving office (via losing an election or resigning). They could only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted by the Senate. And that is for a direct order of assassination.

[Pakuni]

And for the record, Trump's attorneys did say in Oral arguments, that if a President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate their rivals, they would be immune to prosecution, even after leaving office (via losing an election or resigning). They could only be prosecuted if impeached and convicted by the Senate. And that is for a direct order of assassination.

Unfortunately, no time right now for a long response, but this issue is addressed (and corrected) in the amicus brief I linked earlier.

[MU82]

Here is a thorough, easy-to-read guide on the ins and outs of the SCOTUS ruling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/?

I just read it twice, and it was very informative. It also doesn't change my mind that this was an outrageous ruling that gives presidents far more power than the founders intended.

[murara1994]

Here is a thorough, easy-to-read guide on the ins and outs of the SCOTUS ruling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/07/02/official-act-trump-immunity-trial-judge/?

I just read it twice, and it was very informative. It also doesn't change my mind that this was an outrageous ruling that gives presidents far more power than the founders intended.

Since when do libs give an F about the founders.

[Pakuni]

Since when do libs give an F about the founders.

Psst ... the Founders were libs.

[MU82]

Since when do libs give an F about the founders.

I'll assume you forgot teal.

[Hards Alumni]

For those wondering, Heisy did not write this. He stole it from Spike Cohen and presented it without credit to try and make himself appear smart. If you don't remember Spike Cohen, he ran as a vice presidential candidate on the same ticket as Vermin Supreme, a performance artist known for wearing a boot on his head. He later dumped Vermin for Jo Jennings, the 2020 Libertarian presidential candidate.

https://x.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1807513128479150478

I'm not going to go line by line, but I will mention the biggest omission in Heisy's plagiarism is the word "reasonable" before "interpretation". Chevron did give a lot of power to agencies but there were limits on it that the judiciary could enforce. Agencies' regulations could and regularly were challenged in court and the judiciary had the power to (and regularly did) reign in agencies when they overstepped. Spike/Heisy tried to make it sound like agencies were just making things up with no limits when that wasn't the case (I mean seriously. Spike compares it to being arrested with no judge or jury when judges literally could stop agencies who overstepped their mandates).

And Heisy, I know you are trying to make yourself seem smart by criticizing the use of the term chevron doctrine. Chevron deference is a doctrine and Chevron deference is often shortened to just Chevron.

[Uncle Rico]

Since when do libs give an F about the founders.

I'd probably direct you to The Federalist Papers on this particular matter.  The role of the executive was thoroughly discussed when the constitution was penned.  The role of the executive have evolved quite dramatically since then.  Honestly, both sides should want an executive that isn't above the law and acts more like what was envisioned versus what it is today.

Furthermore, I'd probably read biographies on the executives that held the office between the end of the civil war and the assassination of William McKinley and compare them to the presidencies of your lifetime.  It's a fascinating and telling dichotomy of how the position has been interpreted with regards to the principles of our founding fathers.

As for caring about the founders, I'd say the founders would agree modeling a government solely based on 1790 America in 2024 is ridiculous.  The founders would be appalled by both the left and right of modern America, imo, largely because 99% of America couldn't begin to remotely articulate what the founding fathers thought. 

[forgetful]

Unfortunately, no time right now for a long response, but this issue is addressed (and corrected) in the amicus brief I linked earlier.

I'll take your word for this, I didn't read the entire amicus brief, and this is far more your arena than mine.

I will reiterate thought, that a thorough reading of the decision created a roadmap to legally executing tyrannous actions that the whole nation was founded to avoid.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

Washingon, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Henry, and the rest of the Virginia Founding fathers would be anti DEI for...reasons though

[Pakuni]

Washingon, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Mason, Henry, and the rest of the Virginia Founding fathers would be anti DEI for...reasons though

Jefferson was a big fan of diversity.

[Hards Alumni]

Indeed.  Gotcha.  I do think the idea of a "supreme court" is flawed.

Yes, especially how they are chosen, and what their role should be.  Marbury vs Madison started us down this path in 1803.

The system was supposed to have checks and balances, but there is no balance nor check to the SCOTUS. 

[Hards Alumni]

A couple of points.
1. I don't think the "Above the Law" argument works here because for the Supreme Court - and especially this Supreme Court - the Constitution is the ultimate law. The ruling essentially is "The Constitution says the president has authority to do X, and therefore X can't be against the law because the Constitution is the law."
Contrary arguments are suggesting that "This says the president is above the law because he's using his lawful authority."

2. Perhaps I need to brush up on Article II, but I'm not sure the scenarios you lay out here would necessarily be immune, much less carried out.
For one, murder of a political rival would be an unlawful order that members of the military are legally required to refuse.
Second, no less authority than Trump's own attorneys have argued that the president's military authority does not extend to murder or the assassination of political rivals.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303384/20240319133828340_AFPI%20Amici%20Brief%203.19.24.pdf

Third, the Fifth Amendment states that no citizen "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." A political assassination is an obvious violation of that, and Article II requires that a president "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, I question gthat a clear violation of the Constitution would be deemed "an official act" of the presidency.

To be clear, I think this is a terrible ruling, but not because it says "the president can murder." It doesn't actually say that. It's terrible because it doesn't conclusively say that the president can't murder nor provide much clear guidance (outside of Barrett's concurrence) of what are and are not official acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[Pakuni]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[Hards Alumni]

American citizen assassinated by a sitting President. 

[Pakuni]

American citizen assassinated by a sitting President. 

Or, foreign-based terrorist linked to multiple attacks on Americans, publicly encouraged the killing of Americans and who was formally declared a military enemy of the U.S. through official means, making him not subject to the ban on assasinations.

Pretty much the exact same thing as Trump ordering the murder of Mitt Romney.