But as Justice Sonia Sotomayor explained in her dissent, the lesson from Nixon is that when presidents use their power to commit official acts in pursuit of a criminal scheme, that is when we should be most concerned about their conduct and most eager for them to face accountability. Because that is when their criminal conduct poses the most heightened threat to democracy. If the president can take this immense power we entrust him with and manipulate it for corrupt ends—knowing he will never face accountability—then we have fundamentally changed the nature of what the presidency is. He is no longer a person who is elected by the people to represent them for four years. He is an emperor who walks into office, surveys his new powers, and gets to decide how to use them for his own corrupt advantage—to enrich himself, to entrench his authority, to prevent the peaceful transition to power, to even execute his rivals. I just think that is exactly the opposite of how the executive power had been understood until Monday morning. And I find myself baffled that six justices would say that presidential accountability is now constitutionally prohibited rather than constitutionally required
No, ,no he can't.
ReplyDeleteAnd rather than state a conclusion why not explain yourself. If it's an official act, it's immune. Period
DeleteBecause he is only presumptively immune in most cases.
DeleteThe Constitution defines what official acts are available to the President. He cannot push someone into traffic and claim it's an official act. Kal v'chomer activating a SEAL team to go and assassinate an American citizen who is no objective threat to the country.
DeleteThe hysteria surrounding this ruling is not unlike claiming Jews poisoned the local well.
Wow! So you are implying that they are ignorant or stupid since they said that this needs to be determined by lower court !
DeleteIf you had any real education in how SCOTUS operates, generally, and the conservative block in particular, likes to issue rulings that are broad and require remanding. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Many legal scholars and lawyers find this behavior to be very annoying and counterproductive. Major judicial overall like we saw last week are uncharacteristic and a sign that SCOTUS saw serious need for recalibration.
DeleteOn the topic for years, the liberal block of the court was slowly gaining ground because when they issue opinions they Generally like to be as potent as possible which resulted in a steady and slow progression of more liberal precedent (meaning when they issue a ruling they go all the way while the conservatives would stay narrow resulting in a steady shift to the left.) Your welcome for the education.
Wow! Dripping with condescension!
DeleteSo are you saying they are destroying the constitution in the name of revenge or that Conservative judges are deliberately vague and thus require years and countless appeals to know that they are destroying the Constitution?
. You are wrong it is obvious that they are agenda driven like Alito who recently admitted this,
The second. They are deliberately vague. One big issue with making a clear defined line is that it invites cleaver ppl to smoothly navigate their "criminal" activity. Additionally, they are afraid of how things will play out and therefore leave plenty of room for distinctions and the lower court precedent to fill in the blanks. Sometimes, the justices don't think that they are "all knowing".
DeleteMy condescending remarks was my unsuccessful attempt to convince you that this is completely consistent with the conservative blocks style on other non political issues. Unlike Sotomayors dissent, they didn't write the opinion in order to provide buzzwords and panic.
Here are some examples: Citizens United v. FEC (2010): This ruling broadly held that corporations and unions have the same political speech rights as individuals under the First Amendment. Critics argued it was too sweeping and lacked clear guidelines on how to regulate campaign finance.
ReplyDeleteObergefell v. Hodges (2015): While legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, the decision was criticized for not clearly addressing how to balance religious liberty concerns with LGBTQ+ rights.
Lee v. Weisman (1992): In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that clergy-led prayers at public school graduations violated the Establishment Clause. However, the decision left questions about other forms of religious expression in schools.