this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025

243 points (98.8% liked)

politics

21294 readers

4197 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

243

'Ominous signs': Legal expert says John Roberts showed he'll 'reverse precedent' for Trump (www.rawstory.com)

submitted 12 hours ago by MicroWave to c/politics

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Summary

Former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance warned that Chief Justice John Roberts may reverse a key Supreme Court precedent to benefit Donald Trump.

Trump seeks to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1930s ruling that limits presidential power to fire officials.

Vance argues Trump is trying to consolidate executive power and undermine the judiciary. She cited Roberts’ language in a past ruling granting ex-presidents broad immunity as an "ominous sign."

The conservative court may prioritize politics over precedent.

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

How do these people live with themselves?

They dedicate their entire lives to upholding this one thing, then seem to have no qualms just completely tearing it apart... Their one job is to interpret what is already written in the Constitution. That's it.

I'm not a fucking judge or an expert on jurisprudence, but I can tell you that the powers they are giving the executive are completely unconstitutional. It is plain as day to anyone who has ever read the document, let alone Supreme Court Justices.

It's shameful... I'm serious though, why are they ok with doing this?

Neil Gorsuch? Didn't that dude side with Native Americans in that one case about upholding some old contract with them? Mr. "Fulfill your duty/obligations" has no qualms completely abdicating his one responsibility of upholding the US Constitution when it really matters. Shame on you.

Edit: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-rules-u-s-must-pay-more-for-native-american-tribes-health-care/

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-opinions.html

This was the one I was thinking of:

In 2020, Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in a 5-to-4 decision declaring that much of eastern Oklahoma falls within Indian reservations.

It began with a memorable passage: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever.”

[–] Sam_Bass 5 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

By all mean uncrown the fat orange bitch

[–] Arbiter 15 points 8 hours ago

We’re reaching the point where we can only rely on the honorable Sam Colt.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Supreme Court has been playing calvinball since citizens united

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Been listening to the 5-4 podcast about how much the Supreme Court sucks and it's been partisan bullshit forever, but yeah Citizens United will probably be considered the death of American Democracy (even though it was terminally ill beforehand).

The Court will literally just make up rules out of thin air to justify whatever the fuck they want.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

You should listen to the Masterplan podcast as well. This has been in the works since the 70s. And I guess there was the business plot in the 30s before that. You always have to be vigilant or the elites will take the opportunity to install their own dictator.

[–] [email protected] 82 points 12 hours ago

She cited Roberts’ language in a past ruling granting ex-presidents broad immunity as an "ominous sign."

Jesus fucking christ, it's not an "ominous sign," it's literally the keys to the kingdom. All this "taking cases to SCOTUS" is just the easiest way to get what he wants, with the least fuss. That "ominous sign" already says he can do whatever he wants with impunity, and we're gonna find out just how far it goes.

[–] sunbrrnslapper 52 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

Betcha he'll get a solid "gratuity" for it, too.

[–] stickly 2 points 5 hours ago

This is the shit I don't get. So many people paving the way for fascism are selling out a world power that sloshes trillions of dollars around every year for like... a few hundred million + perks? Maybe a few billion if you're important? Its so un-ambitious.

These people also (presumably) have to live in this country after its fucked. When the trillionaires start throwing their weight around and issuing laws your pocket change won't mean shit.

[–] snekerpimp 25 points 12 hours ago

I believe standard fees will apply, an RV and a trip to Tijuana.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Nah, Trump never pays anyone

[–] sunbrrnslapper 1 points 8 hours ago

This is a plot twist I should have seen coming.

[–] just_another_person 14 points 12 hours ago

One of those meaningless medals Trump gets wet handing out.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 8 points 10 hours ago

So the last three or four times he just did it for funsies?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Watching the next federal election will be interesting, to say the least.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 12 hours ago

What next election?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 hours ago

This guy is the literal definition of a corporate stooge.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 hours ago

Absolutely zero integrity

[–] AshMan85 2 points 11 hours ago

The same Vance that let epstien go?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Not sure I'm getting this right: is this John Roberts trying to backpedal on a vaguely related issue after he scotus-voted for the president's immunity? A belated stirring of conscience?

[–] Nightwingdragon 24 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

No. The exact opposite, actually.

John Roberts is basically signaling he's willing to vote in favor of the unitary executive theory, essentially finishing off what their previous ruling that gave Trump all-but-total immunity by saying that he also has the right to do what he wants and the other two branches have no authority to stop him.

At that point, Trump is a dictator. The judicial branch would be relegated to an advisory branch with no enforcement mechanism (and therefore, no force of law). Due to the previous ruling, Congress's ability to give oversight to Trump (even if they wanted to, which they don't), is already neutered since he can't even be legally investigated. Further, Congress passing bills at all would be largely irrelevant. Even if Congress overrides the President's veto, he'd still be able to effectively kill it anyway simply by refusing to execute it.

All those firings Trump and Musk have been doing? Perfectly legal. Impounding money that Congress has already earmarked? Perfectly legal. And Congress wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. Any bills they pass would simply be glorified suggestions and requests that Trump can either choose to fulfill or just choose to ignore. You can pass all the "Saving Widows and Orphans Act" bills you'd like, but they won't matter if Trump just refuses to release the money to fund them, which he would be able to do.