"This Supreme Court term has been an absolutely stellar one for those who like the idea of the federal bureaucracy being restrained. It was also a big one for Donald Trump - not only did he win in the Fischer case, but he walked away from his own immunity case with more guaranteed immunity than I think even he was expecting.
This term's cases showed a conservative majority (and, at times, a coalition majority) that laws are being too broadly interpreted. The federal agencies of the executive branch are interpreting too much power from laws that are too vaguely written by the lawmakers of the legislative branch. As a result, our laws and regulations are being wielded with reckless disregard for the common man."
This term's cases showed a conservative majority (and, at times, a coalition majority) that laws are being too broadly interpreted. The federal agencies of the executive branch are interpreting too much power from laws that are too vaguely written by the lawmakers of the legislative branch. As a result, our laws and regulations are being wielded with reckless disregard for the common man."
"But their frustration over the immunity case is directly at odds with their frustration over the Chevron case and others. They are torn between their love of executive branch power and their hatred of a potential Trump as the leader of the executive branch. ...
Their chief complaint about the immunity case is that it would grant Trump too much power as president. But their chief complaint about several of the other cases is that it takes away too much power from the executive branch."
Their chief complaint about the immunity case is that it would grant Trump too much power as president. But their chief complaint about several of the other cases is that it takes away too much power from the executive branch."
"The immunity decision is much more narrow than the Democrats will honestly admit. The majority was clear in its ruling - absolute immunity extends only to official acts as president. In other words, if it isn't a power granted to the president via the Constitution or by Congress, then it isn't covered in the Supreme Court's decision.
So, with all due respect to Sonia Sotomayor, it's foolish to claim that Trump could arbitrarily assassinate political opponents and be covered by presidential immunity."
So, with all due respect to Sonia Sotomayor, it's foolish to claim that Trump could arbitrarily assassinate political opponents and be covered by presidential immunity."
If that power existed, then the current president (Biden) could have Trump assassinated ...
"What the Supreme Court did in those cases restricted Trump from far more power than he gained in the immunity ruling because those agencies are within the scope of his office."
"The Democrats aren't mad because they think the rulings are bad. They do think that, but their anger is more over the fact that they are struggling to jail Trump before the election (that's been their strategy for beating Trump from Day 1) and the fact that they don't actually want the legislative branch to have to do work. They would rather Congress serve as a bunch of ideological figureheads while the executive branch does all the heavy lifting.
'
No comments:
Post a Comment