[apawloski]

Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."

But unfortunately, there are other channels for them to effectively do the same thing, as discussed in oral arguments. So still not a major win for American manufacturers or consumers, I fear.

[butterbomb]

> Great news for people who had to bend over backwards pretending this disruptive, nakedly corrupt behavior was "good, actually."

Actually they’re still doing it. I saw it not 2 minutes after seeing this post initially. The justifications for why they were “good, actually” has gotten increasingly vague though.

[dylan604]

Sure, but now SCOTUS can say they are not a rubber stamp for POTUS. "See, we just ruled against him. Sure, it's a case that doesn't really solve anything and only causes more chaos, but we disagreed with him. This one time."

[parineum]

> ...but we disagreed with him. This one time.

They've actually done so numerous times already and have several cases on the docket that look to be leaning against him as well. There's a reason why most serious pundits saw this ruling coming a mile away, because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

[EgregiousCube]

Yeah.

If you look a little closely you'll see their current project is to establish the "major questions doctrine," which ultimately reduces executive power by stopping Congress from giving it all to the executive. It looks pro-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive agencies, and it looks anti-POTUS when it reduces the power of executive orders. It's really about resetting what powers Congress can delegate.

[elcritch]

If so that’s great. Congress has long become too complacent and willing to just wait for their parties turn to use presidential overreach.

[watwut]

It is not. The conservative justices work to create imperial presidency with no checks, except in major economical issues that threaten to harm themselves.

And even this ruling had 3 of them objecting, claiming tariffs should stand.

[mrguyorama]

>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Several justices are openly taking bribes

[jorblumesea]

Except for all the other blatantly unconstitutional rulings in his favor. Presidential immunity one will go down in history as a black stain on America and the courts.

and still this current ruling was a 6-3 vote.

[dylan604]

I was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.

[interestpiqued]

Earnestly, I think you need to actually read that opinion. They said some things the president does, he is immune for. And they pushed it back down to the lower courts to define the categories of official acts they laid out.

[bubblewand]

A hallmark of the Roberts court is leaving something technically intact, but practically gutted and dead.

You can still technically bring charges against the president for things they do while in office.

Practically speaking, after that ruling, you cannot, short of hypothetical scenarios so incredibly unlikely and egregious that even the incredibly unlikely and egregious acts of this administration don't meet that bar.

[interestpiqued]

AFAIK bringing charges in office had much less to do with that case. It was dismissed because he was elected president. Which seems more like a pacing problem for the prosecution. In office, they are the prosecutions boss. You’re never gonna be able to charge a sitting president. That’s what impeachment is for. Then you prosecute.

[myko]

there is no just world in which that man is not in prison for jan 6th and his corrupt handling of classified documents

[interestpiqued]

I never said the world was just. But that doesn’t mean the Supreme Courts decision was as blatantly ideological as everyone imagines. Thomas concurring opinion was blatantly ideological as all his opinions are

[axus]

Except for the 3 that dissented

[whateveracct]

Kavanaugh's dissent it honestly deranged

[Pxtl]

Yep.

The president doing horribly fascist things with ICE like obliterating habeas corpus? Using the military to murder people in the ocean without trial? That's fine.

Screwing with the money? Not okay.

See also how the prez is allowed to screw with any congressional appointees except the federal reserve.

[zeroonetwothree]

When they rule for Trump it’s proof they are just a rubber stamp. When they rule against Trump it’s somehow also proof they are a rubber stamp?

[Refreeze5224]

SCOTUS rules for the rich and powerful. Most of the time Trump is aligned with them. Sometimes he does dumb shit like tariffs, or things that upset the order the rich and powerful want to maintain, and they rule against him.

[dylan604]

How do you get that from what I wrote?

[Petersipoi]

How do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?

[Dylan16807]

The argument is obviously that this is not enough to disprove rubber stamping.

"also proof" is a strawman, plain as day.

[tt24]

Is this a serious question? Hahah

[Rapzid]

The damage goes far beyond the wallets of business and consumers. The unilateral, arbitrary tariff setting has little do with money and everything to do with the power it gave Trump. And was one of the primary instruments used to destroy relationships with our foreign allies including our closes neighbor..

[luxuryballs]

To that point it was always relative to the advantage it gained overall when used as leverage for negotiations, now the issue is what other forms of leverage remain? Whether the outcomes of the agreements are good or not is one thing but there’s room for the argument that perhaps tariffs are a better form of leverage when compared with other available options.