[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.

[watwut]

It was pacing issue only because supreme court created lawless situation. The current state of things is literally their ideological project and work succeeding.

[interestpiqued]

The initial indictment wasn’t until Aug 2023, 3 years into Bidens presidency.

[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