End of Chevron doctrine

[brewcity77]

Yep. The current president apparently could have the previous president executed and get away with it as an "official act."

Could do the same thing to the court that just made that allowable. And impeachment is basically impossible because anything can be an official act.

[Lennys Tap]

Am I missing some rage I should be feeling? The immunity is only for "official acts".  That doesn't seem much different that what we've always assumed.

You’re not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.

[Pakuni]

You’re not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.

Constitutional scholar weighs in.

[rocky_warrior]

You’re not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.

Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to).  However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.

[brewcity77]

Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to).  However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.

This was literally asked in the courtroom.

"I'm going to give you a chance to say ... if you stay by it: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military, or orders someone, to assassinate him -- is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?" Sotomayor asked during oral arguments.

"It would depend on the hypothetical," Sauer answered. "We could see that could well be an official act."

This is exactly what today's ruling sanctioned. This is real. This is happening. We do not live in a democratic republic anymore.

[rocky_warrior]

This is real. This is happening. We do not live in a democratic republic anymore.

It's not happening.  Take a deep breath.

[brewcity77]

It's not happening.  Take a deep breath.

You're right. It happened.

This is the origin of the "the president is not a king, and the plaintiff is not the president" ruling. Well, that just got overruled. This is laying the groundwork for Project 2025 so the president can do anything without consequence. That's the whole point. This isn't the America we grew up in anymore.

[rocky_warrior]

You're right. It happened.

This is the origin of the "the president is not a king, and the plaintiff is not the president" ruling. Well, that just got overruled. This is laying the groundwork for Project 2025 so the president can do anything without consequence. That's the whole point. This isn't the America we grew up in anymore.

Sigh.  Ok.  I disagree, wholeheartedly.

[Pakuni]

Maybe Pak is right that they redefined official and unofficial (though I haven't read the decision, and don't plan to).  However, I'm 100% certain that putting a hit out on any US citizen is still illegal and unofficial.

Nowhere did Pak say they redefined official and unofficial. In fact, Pak says a big problem with the ruling is that they did nothing to define official and unofficiall. Rather, it seems they go out of their way to leave that questuion as ambiguous as possible.
(Side note: Barrett tried in a concurrence to clear this up, but her efforts are ultimately in vain).

Here's an excerpt from Roberts' majority decision. Key part (IMO) in bold:

But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.”  The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju-
dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose.
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

Roberts is basically saying here that an official act can be just about anything - even an illegal act - so long as it's not "manifestly" beyond presidential authority, extending to the farthest reaches of what may or may not be a presidential responsibility.
And to be clear, when this court says "manifestly," it means "the Constitution specifically bans it."
To me, this reads an awful lot like saying the president can commit a crime while exercising his power so long the Constitution doesn't specifically says he can't commit that crime.

Full decision:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

[rocky_warrior]

Pak says a big problem with the ruling is that they did nothing to define official and unofficial.

Fair, and thanks for the clarifications.  I just think people are obsessing about an "outer perimeter" hypothetical, that would probably not be included in immunity if it went to court.

[Pakuni]

Fair, and thanks for the clarifications.  I just think people are obsessing about an "outer perimeter" hypothetical, that would probably not be included in immunity if it went to court.

You may be right.
But, for me, the fact this ruling makes us couch that with (you) "probably not" and (me) "may be" is concerning in its own right.

[MU82]

You’re not missing anything, Rocky. The rage is all manufactured.

Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.

[Pakuni]

Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.

Don't forget the victimization of Caitlin Clark.

[rocky_warrior]

Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger.

Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected in this case.

[lawdog77]

Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected it this case.

Shhh. facts not allowed

[MU82]

Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected it this case.

Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: “The President is now a king above the law.”

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, SCOTUS granting presidents above-the-law status is a nothingburger. We should hold our rage for truly important issues, such as the War on Christmas, Mr. Potato Head turning into plain ol' Potato Head, gas stoves getting banned, Confederate statues being canceled, etc.

That’s not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.

[MU82]

That’s not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.

I’m surprised you’d want this potato-headed guy to have the kind of immunity this SCOTUS just granted the sitting president.

And my outrage isn’t faux. It was an outrageous ruling.

[Lennys Tap]

I’m surprised you’d want this potato-headed guy to have the kind of immunity this SCOTUS just granted the sitting president.

And my outrage isn’t faux. It was an outrageous ruling.

I was giving you credit. If not faux, it’s just hyperbolic and dumb.

[Lennys Tap]

Actually, the the notion of absolute immunity was rejected in this case.

True, but don’t confuse 82 (and the justice who wrote a ridiculous dissent) with the facts.

[lawdog77]

Actually, in her dissent, Sotomayor said: “The President is now a king above the law.”

Not to be taken literally. So President Biden would be immune if someone alleges he overstepped his power in a federal trial?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

The fact is that the President has to have some immunity. The other fact is that it’s obviously not limitless. Where that line is ultimately drawn is the issue. This case was obviously going to come to the same conclusion.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

That’s not at all what happened. The faux outrage is funny but understandable. Anything to get the fact that our current president is literally Mr Potato Head out of the headlines.

First, it’s not “faux outrage.” It may be misplaced or exaggerated, but people are legit outraged.

Second, if you think people aren’t talking about Biden’s performance on Friday and discussing the ramifications of it, you aren’t paying attention. It’s been dominating the media discourse for over 48 hours.

[Pakuni]

Not to be taken literally. So President Biden would be immune if someone alleges he overstepped his power in a federal trial?

According to Roberts, he would be immune if a friendly judge decides that it's slightly related to a presidential responsibility. Would, say, "speaking" with federal prosecutors and instructing them to pursue a case a certain way be within the purview of the president? He is the head of the Executive Branch, after all. Who knows? Roberts won't tell us.

As Sultan correctly notes, the president needs to have some level of immunity. Where the ruling gets problematic, IMO, is the court a) muddying (intentionally?) the line between official and unofficial acts and b) quite literally stating the president can commit a crime if it's committed within the "outer perimeter" of presidential authority.

[Uncle Rico]

First, it’s not “faux outrage.” It may be misplaced or exaggerated, but people are legit outraged.

Second, if you think people aren’t talking about Biden’s performance on Friday and discussing the ramifications of it, you aren’t paying attention. It’s been dominating the media discourse for over 48 hours.

Facts