[outer_web]

Eh, SCOTUS still has a big opportunity to reign in the power he claims. The district courts are already doing their thing.

Arbitrarily searching and refusing foreign nationals at the border was always an executive power and we have temporarily chosen one who despises anyone not loyal to him. We get to reap the consequences for the next four years.

[freejazz]

What do you mean reign in? Last year they in a shocking overturn of centuries of political thought came to the finding that the presidential is immune from criminal prosecution for his acts as president and then offered no actual guidance on how to determine whether an act was "as president".

[outer_web]

Because power and legal liability are different. He can order a political opponent thrown in prison without cause. He does not have the power to do so, so that person would be freed by a court. Due to the immunity ruling, he is not liable for those actions now or after he leaves office unless he is impeached/convicted.

The extremely vague guidance was in part because SCOTUS only tries to rule on what is in front of them and also because they want any immunity decision to go through them.

[freejazz]

I don't think you got my point (not a big surprise considering how your approach here is) which is that the Supreme Court have not shown an interest in curtailing executive power.

Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting to all the other frogs in the pot that they'll all know when the water is too hot, so they should not worry.

[outer_web]

I'd love to have a discussion with you about it but you seem convinced I have an agenda.

[freejazz]

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other nor why it would be an issue prohibiting a discussion. We might disagree about what your agenda is, but surely everyone has an "agenda". Were your responses not what you wanted to express to me?

I just find that an obtuse response that completely looks past the post its responding to without even acknowledging that fact is a bit disingenuous but, I guess feel free to convince me otherwise if you'd like. I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one. Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.

[outer_web]

> I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one.

I understand that my emphasizing a difference between 'driving toward a crisis' and being in the midst of one may seem like splitting hairs but I hope it isn't.

If you take Trump at his word, the crisis is certain. But he bloviates constantly. He might try to disassemble democracy or ignore a SCOTUS decision. But he might back down. He's in a pretty decent spot and it doesn't make sense to risk it all on a few deportations or civil service firings.

So I disagree with the certainty of a constitutional crisis and hope it sounds well-reasoned. Remember this is the guy who promised to fix the budget deficit, crime, immigration, healthcare...

To your original point, I reiterate that the immunity decision - while terrible - doesn't grant the president any additional powers. It simply allows him to test the limits of existing authorities without legal consequence. Ignoring court orders is still illegal and SCOTUS did not change that in Trump v. US. I am not sure why saying this "missed the point" unless the point was to underscore the urgency of the situation.

[archagon]

SCOTUS have no way of enforcing their rulings.

[cryptonector]

Depends on the type of ruling. The executive can't make the courts convict people willy nilly. The executive can't make the courts rule in civil cases the way he wants them to.

But mandamus orders against the executive really can't be enforced by the courts, not even the writ of Habeas Corpus -- and famously so, I might add, since Lincoln suspended the writ even though the Constitution says only Congress can do it, and he refused to bring people accused of sabotage or insurrection to the courts.

[outer_web]

Let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Trump is as good at backing down as he is at making asinine claims.

[wat10000]

They already said he has total immunity for official acts. What are they going to do when they ask him to stop doing something and he doesn't? It's not like they can punish him for it.

[outer_web]

Yes, immunity means there are zero downsides for him to try illegal things. That doesn't legalize illegal orders, it just means they all have to wait for their day in court.

[masfuerte]

But what happens after the day in court? What is to stop him carrying on with the illegal policies?

[outer_web]

A few things but your concern is totally valid; we are in a bad place if he does not back down.

1. Executive power has limits. E.g. civil litigation and state law are largely outside his jurisdiction.

2. Agents of the government must follow the law, even if it contradicts an exective order. They open themselves to criminal liability if they don't.

3. Congress. Haha just kidding that's only in the timeline where Harambe is still alive.

[DangitBobby]

1. Order illegal activity carried out by loyal minions

2. Minions jailed for illegal activities

3. Pardon minions, law-abiding judicial forces to drop prosection

4. Go to 1

[wat10000]

What makes it so he has to wait? He’ll make illegal orders, they’ll be carried out, the courts will say no, he’ll ignore them, repeat.

[ttw44]

I will seriously consider in the near future about withdrawing my future plans from the US if the SCOTUS do not show any backbone to this.