• BertramDitore@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Wiz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        6 months ago

        Easy.

        Republican: Legal. Democrat: Illegal.

      • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

      • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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.

        • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            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.

            • BertramDitore@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

      • chakan2@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Congress. Since Congress isn’t functional, that means whatever the president does is now legal.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes…any action the president takes and say it’s part of his official duties is legal.

      Biden doesn’t have the balls to do what he needs to do right now.

      The great experiment failed.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      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.