Exactly, and that’s how this court is so tricky. By not fully defining what an “official act” is, they’re claiming the power to decide later. Because that very issue will inevitably reach them after some batshit district court ruling. So they ultimately get to decide regardless, and this court regularly makes up ahistorical and completely absurd justifications that don’t pass the smell test, so we’re doomed.
They do, and it will only be “official” when a Republican does it. Once they control the courts, it’s game over. Nothing short of unstacking the court will avert a fascist dictatorship.
I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an “official act” though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.
They remanded to the lower courts to determine that. But like it does have some implication. They definitely did not say everything the president does is an official action.
So doesn’t that mean the US didn’t really ever have separation of powers? Sounds like the door to fascism wasn’t locked and we just used the honour system.
Yeah, that’s unfortunately right. So much of the American system is based on norms and ideals that we trusted our leaders to respect. The Supreme Court has seized their authority, and since they refuse to recognize Congressional oversight (the Chief Justice has regularly refused to appear before Congress), there’s very little we can do.
As far as I can tell, yup. And by official, it basically means anything done while in office, so he could theoretically walk out onto Pennsylvania Avenue, spray a group of protestors holding signs with an M16, and walk back inside with no legal repercussions.
Didn’t they just legalize “any” official action?
Exactly, and that’s how this court is so tricky. By not fully defining what an “official act” is, they’re claiming the power to decide later. Because that very issue will inevitably reach them after some batshit district court ruling. So they ultimately get to decide regardless, and this court regularly makes up ahistorical and completely absurd justifications that don’t pass the smell test, so we’re doomed.
Easy.
Republican: Legal. Democrat: Illegal.
Who says what is official?
They do, and it will only be “official” when a Republican does it. Once they control the courts, it’s game over. Nothing short of unstacking the court will avert a fascist dictatorship.
I do find it amusing that SCOTUS made a ruling that legalizes having them assassinated as an “official act” though. After all, being in contact with intelligence agencies is definitely an official act as is writing pardons, so he can always pardon the assassin(s) afterward.
They remanded to the lower courts to determine that. But like it does have some implication. They definitely did not say everything the president does is an official action.
And who gets to decide if a lower court decision stands? You guessed it, the Supreme Court. This was always going to be their ultimate decision.
So doesn’t that mean the US didn’t really ever have separation of powers? Sounds like the door to fascism wasn’t locked and we just used the honour system.
Yeah, that’s unfortunately right. So much of the American system is based on norms and ideals that we trusted our leaders to respect. The Supreme Court has seized their authority, and since they refuse to recognize Congressional oversight (the Chief Justice has regularly refused to appear before Congress), there’s very little we can do.
As far as I can tell, yup. And by official, it basically means anything done while in office, so he could theoretically walk out onto Pennsylvania Avenue, spray a group of protestors holding signs with an M16, and walk back inside with no legal repercussions.