SCOTUS news and opinions

[EnglishEdward]

You think they did not think of that?

No doubt, the SCOTUS majority think that Joe Biden wouldn't have the nerve, and Donald Trump is on their side.

But those two are both old men. No one knows who will be POTUS in five or ten years time.

I doubt that SCOTUS thought through the long term implications of increasing the power of the POTUS.

Personally I think that there should be some limited qualified immunity for Heads of State,
but legally specifying that requires a great deal of thought and they have not done that.
Partly because some are old, but also because they seem too busy rushing through cases.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Scotus majority only cares about keeping the conservatives in power and their agenda at the forefront. They want their court to dictate policy and legislation.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Regarding the President using the military against US civilians, the "Posse Comitatus Act" looks like it would be one of the things the President would have immunity from, under this SCOTUS ruling.

From the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:

18 U.S. Code § 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus: Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

That's it. That's the entire thing.

And of course that's not even accounting for The Insurrection Act.

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.

www.brennancenter.org

The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.

If I'm reading this right - and I may not be - President Eisenhower only needed an Executive Order (link to National Archives) in 1957 to deploy soldiers from the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, AR, to enforce the SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education, when the governor of that state refused to.

SEC. 3. In furtherance of the enforcement of the aforementioned orders of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the armed forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.

No mention is made of the Insurrection Act, but I assume that's what gave Eisenhower the authority to do that, that Gov. Faubus was in effect committing an act of insurrection by refusing to enforce the Supreme Court's order. Faubus wasn't arrested, but that may have been a political decision.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

In Senator Whitehouse and Wyden's request for information on Thomas to investigate him, it was found he went to Russia on billionaire Harlan Crow's dime back in 2003.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811152041479393347

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811253355324567731

 

[choxorn]

I am shocked, shocked, just like I will be shocked when Thomas faces absolutely no consequences from these revelations

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Biden: 18 year term limits for Justices, code of ethics, constitutional amendment where no president is above the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

 

[EgonSpengler]

Biden: 18 year term limits for Justices, code of ethics, constitutional amendment where no president is above the law.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/

I haven't read the details or any analysis, but just at a superficial level, I think these are all good ideas and they'll never happen.

 

[Lexicus]

In Senator Whitehouse and Wyden's request for information on Thomas to investigate him, it was found he went to Russia on billionaire Harlan Crow's dime back in 2003.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811152041479393347

https://twitter.com/x/status/1811253355324567731

If Special Counsels start investigating the Supreme Court the Supreme Court will deploy Thomas' argument that they are unconstitutional

 

[Farm Boy]

The legal remedy is impeachment.

The practical remedy is the executive simply ignores the courts. Like with the historical precedent with say, Habeus Corpus. What are you going to do, send the court guards into the White House to arrest the President?

 

[Lexicus]

The legal remedy is impeachment.

Sure, and a Special Counsel report concluding that a Justice or Justices committed impeachable offenses would be part of that remedy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe. But an impeachment is not a trial as such, we have such high expectations. Impeachment is really only political.

 

[Lexicus]

Maybe. But an impeachment is not a trial as such, we have such high expectations. Impeachment is really only political.

I agree, but if we're ackowledging that the outcome of an impeachment trial depends on the partisan allegiance of Congressfolk, then we're already making the argument for other reforms, other remedies.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think I see the leap you're using there.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't think I see the leap you're using there.

Impeachment is really only political = "I'm voting to acquit the Justice because he is of my party, regardless of the facts of the case" = impeachment does not function effectively as a check on SCOTUS.

Thus, the need for actually effective checks on SCOTUS' power.

 

[Farm Boy]

It does as intended. It makes them need to be unpopular with both parties before they can be removed.

Which is rather the point. Otherwise you just get Illinois. Or Alabama. And both seem rather like ****, comparatively. Where it's been so long since some form of balance of ideas was even possible that everyone has forgotten that they stopped asking.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Biden: 18 year term limits for Justices

He's one to talk...

 

[Gorbles]

He's one to talk...

Biden's a Justice?

 

[Lexicus]

It does as intended. It makes them need to be unpopular with both parties before they can be removed.

This is just not true. The constitution's framers intended their republic to have no organized parties at all. The idea was that the three-branch structure would lead to a situation where each branch would jealously guard its own prerogatives, prestige, and authority against the other two branches, which would lead to the branches checking each other effectively. The framers in fact explicitly wrote that the capture of parts of the government by "parties," whose interests could/would supercede the interests of the individuals involved, would break the system and render the checks & balances effectively inoperative.

 

[Hygro]

He's one to talk...

The guy limited to 2 terms who is calling it at 1?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

The guy limited to 2 terms who is calling it at 1?

The guy who's been in politics for like 50 years total.

Let me put it this way. If you were born after 1955, you have never not known who Joe Biden was by the time you became of voting age...
Give. Me. A break.