upvote

points

by apawloski9 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby dylan6049 hours ago|
next
[-]
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."
reply
upvoteby parineum9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> ...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.

reply
upvoteby mrguyorama6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
>because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration.

Several justices are openly taking bribes

reply
upvoteby jorblumesea8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby dylan6047 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats.
reply
upvoteby interestpiqued6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby bubblewand5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby axus8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Except for the 3 that dissented
reply
upvoteby zeroonetwothree7 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
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?
reply
upvoteby dylan6046 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How do you get that from what I wrote?
reply
upvoteby Petersipoi2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
How do you not see how they got that from what you wrote?
reply
upvoteby tt242 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Is this a serious question? Hahah
reply
upvoteby Refreeze52247 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.
reply
upvoteby Pxtl2 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
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.

reply
upvoteby Rapzid3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
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..
reply
upvoteby butterbomb7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> 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.

reply