Fair point. I’d been better off saying that I won’t hold my breath on any of this passing. You’re right, there is value behind starting this conversation.
I wonder what the history is of the Court upholding laws that restrict its own power, particularly of individual members. I honestly don't know, but I can't imagine the current court would go for it.
the second proposal, and probably the first, require a constitutional amendment (the first wouldn’t if you can convince a future court to revisit the decision). The third can probably be done via legislation.
on the first, I agree if you want “zero immunity”. I think you could argue that legislation could address the other aspects of their decision, including the evidentiary matters. They might overturn it but I think it’s reasonable
They went against the plain text of the constitution to reach their decision in that case. An ordinary federal law isn’t going to stop them. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. No presidential exception exists in this clause despite their being a specific presidential exception noted in the previous clause (mandating the Chief Justice preside over a presidential impeachment trial). Had the founders intended any kind of presidential immunity to exist, it would have been noted here. It isn’t. It doesn’t exist. It’s an invention of neo-monarchists.
Bookmarked this for a reason https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/27/opinion/john-roberts-supreme-court.html
Or what you asshole. Are you going to continue striking down every piece of legislation that helps working class Americans? Are you going to continue cashing checks from billionaires and removing every guardrail from unchecked presidential immunity? Biden needs to push this SCOTUS stuff hard in his last several months.
Dipshit. They take turns being the 4th (read: meaningless) vote for the dissent to muddy the waters. Shape the story how you want, hey, Neil, we’re not slow.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/20/business/kroger-albertsons-ftc-lawsuit/index.html The Kroger lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Cincinnati, relies in part on a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that further curbed the power of regulatory agencies. The new lawsuit represents a key test case and the latest effort to reshape the administrative state in America. Experts say a Kroger victory would usher in a seismic shift in how the federal government challenges mergers. US officials fear that weakening regulators’ ability to fight monopolies could hurt consumers by giving corporations too much power to raise prices and close stores.
you mean you expect Congress to actually legislate? Forget that. No one on the right has any incentive to.
Surprising https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-under-21-guns/index.html Supreme Court leaves in place Pennsylvania law barring people under 21 from carrying guns
that ruling is very obvious under Padilla and it’s shocking that there would be any dissents. Sounds like some Republican judges want noncitizens to have more rights than citizens do!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...lina-bid-defund-planned-parenthood-rcna184697 The Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a long-running dispute in South Carolina over the state’s attempt to prevent the health care provider Planned Parenthood from participating in the Medicaid health program. The technical legal issue is whether people eligible to use Medicaid, a program for low-income people administered by states, can sue in order to pick the qualified health care provider of their choice. Republican-led South Carolina has long sought to bar Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid because it provides abortions. The legal landscape in the state has changed since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. South Carolina now bans all abortions after six weeks — a threshold that makes the procedure increasingly rare. Planned Parenthood has facilities in Charleston and Columbia that now provide limited abortion care in line with the new ban as well as other health care services including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing. Julie Edwards, a patient who wanted to use Planned Parenthood to obtain contraception services, joined the group in suing the state following a decision in 2018 that found abortion clinics could not provide family planning services under Medicaid. The case has bounced around the courts since a district court judge ruled that the state could not bar Planned Parenthood from participating in the program. State officials are represented in the case by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. "Pro-life states like South Carolina should be free to determine that Planned Parenthood and other entities that peddle abortion are not qualified to receive taxpayer funding through Medicaid," one of the group's lawyers, John Bursch, said in a statement.
I assume they'll approve this, right? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...t-oklahoma-bid-launch-first-public-rcna186031 Supreme Court to hear church-state fight over bid to launch first publicly funded religious charter school An attempt to authorize the Catholic school was challenged as a violation of the First Amendment, which limits government involvement in religion.
I’m going to open a JonathanCoachman Donda Academy style charter school for Wahhabi Islamists. Where’s my money?
As someone who's Christian and whose kids don't go to public school, these cases infuriate me. It's wasting time and absolutely crazy.
Idk if don't think it's a waste of time for the religious right. I think this SC will allow them to do it.
Clarification: it is wasting the judiciary's time. I'm sort of surprised that the archdiocese in OKC is backing this. It may not seem this way, but generally dioceses aren't super rightist and are concerned about the optics of this sort of thing. But I guess YOLO?
What I'm saying is I don't think it's a waste of their time, this SC wants it. The SC wants it and the churches want the money.
Lol what an awful misread of the USCCB and Church leadership in the U.S. There are differences at the diocesan level, but the top is rotten.