GeorgiaDon

I think this decision will come to be seen as on par with Dred Scott. Like Dred Scott, the damage will likely require a constitutional amendment or two to repair. Perhaps the Democrats should campaign on putting forward a couple of amendments, one to limit presidential immunity and to define a process to decide what acts are "official" and what are not (with self-dealing firmly in the "not" category), and a second amendment to impose term limits on supreme court justices. An enforceable code of ethics would be good too. Perhaps another amendment could introduce an upper age limit to the presidency. Another thing they could campaign on is a repeal of the Comstock Act.

If everyone who hates this SC decision were to mail each justice who voted for it a pair of MAGA embroidered knee pads, I wonder if they would get the message. Also an inflatable Trump doll and a "bag of dicks" might be appropriate.

Yes, and no. The ruling so hamstrung any possible prosecution that it is difficult to see how it would even be possible. It is now forbidden to seek testimony from, or even to interview, anyone in the administration. It is also forbidden to raise any issue regarding the president's motive for an act. How could a prosecutor even establish if an act falls under the "official" or "unofficial" category under such circumstances? As an example of the situation we now have, imagine Trump announces on the White House social media feed that he will sell pardons for $1,000,000, and then he actually does so. Issuing pardons and communicating to the public on official White House channels are part of his official duties, so neither of those things could be used as evidence. His motive for issuing the pardons also cannot be raised. So all we would have is the payment, which could easily be disguised as a donation to a PAC, from which he could legally use the money for personal purposes. So, in practice the Supreme Court has just legalized bribing the President. Similar arguments could be raised for all manner of other acts that would be criminal for you and me, but now not for the President. Perhaps someone could argue that a President could still be impeached and removed from office for such conduct. Leaving aside the glaring fact that virtually no Republican in Congress would vote for that (so the Democrats would have to control the House and over 60% of the Senate to actually remove a Republican President), yesterday's SC decision means that if the President does such things they are not illegal. So what is left that might qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors"? With this decision, the SC effectively neutered the possibility of impeaching and convicting a President as well. The President is now indeed our King. The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. This decision by the Supreme Court qualifies in every meaningful way, except perhaps in name, as a constitutional amendment, making the President the modern day incarnation of King George.

First off, with the Chevron decision (plus eliminating the statute of limitation for lawsuits) they castrate the ability of government agencies to protect the public interest, and give carte blanche to big corporations to do whatever. In the process they install themselves as arbitrators of every government function. Then today they make the president above the reach of the law. Project 2025 indeed. Roberts, Thomas, Alito et al must be very proud of their handiwork.

Adding to the decision to throw out Chevron, today the supreme court effectively threw out the 6 year statute of limitations Congress set for entities to challenge rules or regulations set by government agencies. Despite the plain language of the law, the conservative members of the court twisted that language like a pretzel to achieve the long standing wet dream of the Heritage Foundation and ensure that they (the judicial system) would become the ultimate "deciders" who really run the country. I guess unless you are a conservative justice, you must be just a "mud-sill", too stupid to be allowed a say in how society functions. (If you subscribe to Heather Cox Richardson's blog you'll know the term mud-sill; if not, it is an old term for the laboring class, good for providing the "muscle" to keep the economy running, but only under the control of the ruling class.)

I give it about 5 years before this court abolishes the EPA.

Regarding things in general, every regulatory decision that has a financial impact on any business will have to be litigated to death before they can be enforced. The courts will be overwhelmed to the point of paralysis. It will be impossible to respond to any health or environmental problem, indeed any issue, on a time scale faster than decades. And in the end, any decision no matter how technical will be made by judges who have no training in the subject. However lawyers are well known for their confidence that they can read a one page brief and know more than anyone who has spent their whole career working on a topic.

Canada has a figurehead monarch with no actual power. The MAGA population of the USA hungers for an actual monarch with absolute power.

I often hear that fertility rate decreases with education level of women, and no doubt that is true, but I sometimes wonder how much that is cause and effect and how much is correlation. Fertility rate also declines as a society becomes more wealthy. In advanced economies children are an expensive luxury. They cost a lot to educate, to entertain, to house, and to feed and clothe. Even the ability to transport a large family is quite costly. On the other hand they don’t generate any financial benefits. In developing/third world economies children cost less, and they can work the farm/gardens or otherwise bring in some money. Having a lot of children is also advantageous because they will take care of the parents when the parents are elderly. Many kids won’t survive long enough to contribute, or they won’t have the extra wealth to be able to care for their parents. So, we have an interesting dichotomy : poor economy, lots of kids are an advantage; rich economy, kids are a net expense. Of course, there is also a relationship between the education level of women and how wealthy a society is. More women educated is tied to more people overall working, which impacts the overall wealth of a society.

If unconstrained greed is such a good thing, I guess we can call you a fan of Alex Murdock. Sensible people realize there needs to be limits to greed. When people build their fortune facilitated by a society that provides them with an educated work force, infrastructure that allows them to access their supply base and get their products to market, and on and on, yet claim they shouldn’t have to help pay for any of that, they are worse than the mythical welfare queen they so fear.

When MAGA types are asked about the mythical "Again" time they want to return to, they generally vaguely refer to the post-WWII years. Back when Men were Men (or cowboys, or test pilots), women knew their place (baking cookies while barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen), and the color line was in full force. Another interesting aspect of MAGA dream time is that during the Eisenhower Administration the top marginal income tax rate, which applied to income above $200,000 ($400,000 for couples) ($200,00 in 1954 dollars is equivalent to $2.3 million today), was 91% (!!!). Of course, that was the taxes applied to the portion of income above those limits. A couple making $465,000 would have paid an effective tax rate of 75%. (source) So I'm curious, if there is any truth to the argument that expecting the very wealthy to pay anything more than an incredibly low tax rate would result in them refusing to invest in business, leading to the collapse of American society, how is it that those years of 90% tax rates are the very same years that are held up as the best years in America's history? And Brent, I'll see your "envy" and raise you "greed".

"Nutty" is in the eye of the beholder. I consider limiting what is possible in the legal realm to laws closely similar to laws that were in effect in 1791 (when the 2nd was passed), to be completely "nutty", or more to the point insane. We will see how far Thomas and Alito want to take us in a couple of months when the court rules on US vs Rahimi, but the indication so far is that because domestic abuse was legal three hundred years ago, domestic partners today are ineligible for protection from "gun nut" boyfriends and spouses. I find it nutty, or even insane, that any "originalists" could think that that is a good idea.

Good ideas I think, but I'm pretty sure they weren't doing all that in 1776 so it won't take long for Thomas and Alito to take a big stinky dump all over the idea.

Your opinion always matters. However, if Willis takes herself off the case, that would mean taking her entire prosecution office off the case. That would require reassigning the case to a different prosecutor's office elsewhere in the state, which would mean that new prosecutor (if anyone would agree to take the case) would start all over, beginning with reviewing everything and deciding what charges (if any) to pursue. Everything would be delayed by many months at a minimum, and it might well never get to trial. OTOH Wade could be replaced and the prosecution would continue through Willis's office, likely with not much delay.

A MAGAt? Lord of the Flies?