You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
That’s just due process of law. The lower court can’t just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he’s alright.
It’ll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
one of the arguments you used.
It decidedly is not.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate.
I didn’t contend that if you follow a linear political view they’d be on the right side. I argued with the notion that all of the 3 justices were far right.
Wow .26mm of disparity is a lot for such a crucial part. It may not be a high end printer. But seriously? At $280 USD I’d expect the pulley to be tighter tolerance.
My contention was that they are all radicals. Not that the three are conservative leaning.
The fact that it doesn’t always line up left right doesn’t change the fact that these did.
Unless you consider Gorsuch, Thomas, and Roberts left wing those three cases didn’t. Which I consider you don’t given this comment. 30% of the time opinions are 9-0. If you think most of the cases fit a partisan line go through the cases count how many follow partisan lines. They list them all here.
If you group the justices in two partisan groups Thomas and RBG & Roberts and Sotomayor certainly wouldn’t be on the same sides.
I’m not even sure why you’re bringing it up.
I explained this in the first sentence of my comment.
On most of these cases, the left side has voted one way and the right the other.
Inorder as above:
NG, JR, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v SA, CT, & BK
NG, RBG, SB, SS, & EK v JR, SA, BK, & CT
NG, RBG, SB, SS, BK, & CT v SA, JR, & EK
That’d only be true if you consider Gorsuch, Roberts (for him fair), and Thomas as swing votes siding with the left.
I don’t think characterizing them as all being far right hacks is very accurate. Gorsuch for example wrote Bostock v Clayton County (Stopping people from being from being fired for sexual identity or orientation), McGirt v Oklahoma (Upholding a long ignored treaty with the Creek nation), and Ramos v Louisiana (Killing a Jim Crow law designed to disadvantage minorities in criminal trials). They just abide a different judicial doctrine.
I think that case was rightly decided on both a policy and law basis. But after the law was enacted, the agency had interpreted the law to have an understanding on how they should enforce it prior to the judicial interpretation.
So the agency did interpret the law as including bees as fish, correctly. Had the not done so the court case wouldn’t have happened because no one would have been advocating for that interpretation.
I think their alluding to a California Bee interpretation another commenter mentioned and perhaps Sackett v EPA for the one after that. For the switching one I read that probably referring to multiple cases but the BATFE pistol brace interpretation has gone through multiple instances, several implicating hundreds of thousands into felons. For the making up rules I’d guess they were talking about the recent court decision where the agency decided they could hold fishers accountable for compliance officer’s salaries despite the law not state that they could do that.
It absolutely the least democratic, they aren’t representatives they’re judges. They side with the laws enacted by the people, not the people. And all federal judges are appointed.
That power has been with the judicial branch for 180+ years before it was given by the Court to the agency in the 80s to prop up a Reagan interpretation of the Clean Air Act.
Beyond the obvious constitution issues, federalizing every law makes it harder for the people of a state to adjust the laws of their state to fit their desires. Creating a less democratic society.
SCOTUS throws out Roe, bunch of states do constitutional amendments, SCOTUS rules “Na, none of that means anything, all abortions are now illegal!”
I don’t see that happening given the direct text of Dobbs:
The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
Think you meant non elected.
But the point is that policy decisions aren’t to be made by courts or agencies. They are to be made by an elected legislature, informed by the Congregational Research Services. To ensure the separation of powers.
Then the Executive agencies are to be tasked with enforce of the law. And if conflict should arise in the understanding of the law the judiciary is to interpret the law. And while judges are not experts in everything they are the experts in statutory interpretation.
My perspective having known about Chevron before Friday is that while this is a big development for admin law people seem to be overstating the impact it will likely have. Agencies like the EPA, FDA, etc can still make rules as before now courts just have to judge arguments on interpretation impartially, like they did before the SCOTUS made the doctrine in the 80s aiding Reagan. The SCOTUS hasn’t even applied it since 2016.
Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president’s official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.
If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they’d have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.
As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don’t sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.