US Supreme Court limits federal judges' power to block Trump orders

> ? I'm entirely unaware of your sex. I imagine many of the hysterical people in this thread are men.

How is that relevant? The fantasy that any opinion that differs from yours is based in emotional interests, whereas your opinion is objective and logical is the root of many misogynistic attacks.

> Correct, the SC is supposed to resolve that. And in this judgement, they affirm that they will.

Your argument is tautological. You're saying "SCOTUS's job is to interpret the Constitution, and there is no appeal to their decision, therefore their interpretetation must be correct." Your position makes it impossible to ever find that SCOTUS is incorrect. So what's the point of your argument?

> If the SC wanted to make bribery constitutionally permissible, they would not have made the ruling statutory. By making a ruling on statutory interpretation they are explicitly inviting congress to over-turn their ruling by amending the law. That's deliberate.

What's deliberate is they opened the door to official corruption, despite the obvious intent of Congress to make that activity illegal. When their judgement goes against the plain language and intent of the written law, SCOTUS is wrong. Now, those wishing to commit official corruption have a clear, SCOTUS-approved blueprint of how to do it. They have, with their decision, ensured that only the most inept cases of official corruption can be prosecuted. And they know full well that Congress, in its current state of disfunction, will not ammend the law.

> No, this is illegal and prosecutable. A "political enemy" of the person of the president (eg., trump) is a private action. You can read the decision, it has nothing to do with allowing the person-who-happens-to-be-president to do whatever they want. A very wide class of criminal actions of this person are still criminal, this is explicitly there in the judgement.

You have clearly not read the decision. Any official act using powers vested in the presidency gets presumptive immunity. Conferring with the AG is an official act. All the president has to do is claim a good-faith attempt to enforce the law, and the act cannot be used as evidence in any prosecution against him.

> They even clearly imply many of the things trump has done are prosecutable, and iirc, this is raised in oral arguments.

I don't believe they did. Please provide a citation from the decision.

> I don't know where you're getting your information, but it has little to do with these SC judgments or their reasoning. The constitutional powers afforded to the president (, congress, courts) are the very foundation of the constitution. All "immunity" here means is that insofar as these powers are concerned, obviously, they can only be changed via a constitutional amendment.

This is completely irrelevant. No one is talking about changing the powers, only requiring that they be used lawfully. The president takes an oath to carry out the law; your position, and that of SCOTUS, seems to be that that oath has no meaning.

> The actions of the president, to form the executive, constitute his presidental power. Just as, eg., writing a court opinion is the power of a judge. A judge cannot "make illegal" constitutional actions of the president, just as the president cannot arrest a judge for a judgement.

Again, a tautalogical argument: if his act is Constitutional, then it can't be illegal. That's missing the point. The president can have the Constituional power to command the army, while still not having the legal power to command the army to murder Joe Biden. Do you honestly not see the difference between a means granted by the Constitution and an illegal use of that power? Well, if you don't, you belong on the SCOTUS.

> Presidental immunity in this case has nothing to do with immunity of the person of the president from criminal action taken to further his private interests, that is explicitly illegal in the ruling

This interpretation is not to be found in the ruling.

Based on your responses, I'd say that you are the one letting your emotions get the best of you. You're clearly in the bag for Trump and are willing to distort reality in order to justify your preconceived position.

[dead]

I arrived to a thread in chaos. I don't take it to have been my foot forward.

Perhaps I could've better phrased it, "Given the emotional disregulation caused by the dissents, go read K's concurrence" -- however this is what I meant to say, still mean to say, and said.

I don't take the only legitimate aim of a comment to be "arguments" in this sense. One can comment on the psychology of the environment one finds oneself in without this being ad hom.

If the law is universal then it makes sense that courts can rule universally. If the law is arbitrary and every judge is basically a ruler of their own domain, which directly conflicts with the idea of Rule of Law, then it would be invalid for a lower court to make universal rulings.

It is precisely the universality and supremacy of the law which gives the lower courts the authority to make universal rulings. Just because something is federally illegal in one federal district doesn't mean it is legal in another.

The lower court doesn't have more authority than the appellate court if the appellate court can overturn the lower court.

No court has the "authority" to make arbitrary unlawful rulings.

As someone said in another comment, constitutionality of an action is national. There's nothing that could be considered unconstitutional in one particular region of the US and not in the others. The nationwide injunction is a tool that needs to happen if the US is ever attempting to be a country of laws.