| ▲ | dylan604 8 hours ago |
| 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." |
|
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 6 hours ago | parent | 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? |
| |
| ▲ | dylan604 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you get that from what I wrote? | | | |
| ▲ | Refreeze5224 6 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. |
|
|
| ▲ | Pxtl an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | parineum 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > ...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. |
| |
| ▲ | mrguyorama 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >because SCOTUS has proven to not be a puppet of the administration. Several justices are openly taking bribes | |
| ▲ | axus 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Except for the 3 that dissented | |
| ▲ | jorblumesea 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I was flabbergasted that SCOTUS actually said that the concept of no man being above the law had caveats. | |
| ▲ | interestpiqued 5 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. | | |
| ▲ | bubblewand 4 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. |
|
|
|
