Is the presidential immunity ruling even worse than Dred Scott?

[VBM]

Yes (sane).

[Agafin]

No, saying that the president has immunity in official acts is not as bad as saying that black people are property. In fact, it was already de facto the law, they just clarified it.

[BlueSwan]

In fact, it was already de facto the law, they just clarified it.

LOL, no. They most certainly did not clarify anything when even the supreme court justices themselves disagree on whether this allows the president to assassinate his political opponents. This is about as vague as it gets and is a de facto carte blanche for the president to do whatever he pleases.

[Beet]

It's world-historical bad, but Dred Scott was still worse.

[US Medieval Italy Crowned Republic Era]

It's world-historical bad, but Dred Scott was still worse.

[John Dule]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

[Yelnoc]

No, what is wrong with you

[DaleCooper]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

Indoctrination from the university.  

[VBM]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

[President Johnson]

No, but probably one of the three worst rulings of the last 50 years. In the same category as Dobbs and Citizens United.

[Green Line]

Where are the excessive hyberpole police?

[SWE]

At least there's something resembling reasoning behind why someone would support presidential immunity from either a legal a practical standpoint, even if it's very dumb with devastating consequences. Dred Scott, however, didn't even attempt that. If that decision only said "African Americans cannot become citizens because heorgeshei divgedios whhjs hipsgw guil2s" then Roger Taney wouldn't look any morally or intellectually worse than he actually did

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

The problem is not so much the establishment that the President has absolute immunity for official acts, which is problematic but as mentioned already kind of existing in previous precedent, but rather the vagueness as to what constitutes one.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

At least there's something resembling reasoning behind why someone would support presidential immunity from either a legal a practical standpoint, even if it's very dumb with devastating consequences. Dred Scott, however, didn't even attempt that. If that decision only said "African Americans cannot become citizens because heorgeshei divgedios whhjs hipsgw guil2s" then Roger Taney wouldn't look any morally or intellectually worse than he actually did

The only case I've heard of with a potentially dumber basis than Dred Scott is an obscure tribal sovereignty case from the late 19th century that ruled that because a certain tribe were largely assimilated and were mostly Christian, usually wore fashion standard of the era, had a solid agricultural economy instead of hunter/gatherer and didn't have serious problems with alcoholism and drunkness, they were therefore not Native Americans and not eligible for official tribal recognition.

It was at least later overturned in United States v. Sandoval (1913)

[John Dule]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

[First1There]

Not Yet

[Convicted Felon Donald Trump]

This essentially makes the president a King.

We are absolutely all of us royally f**ked.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Not Yet

Indeed. If Biden does somehow still win, we'd have dodged a thermonuclear warhead.

[VBM]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

If a Republican president commits a crime and a lower court deems it an unofficial act, the decision will be appealed to the Republican Supreme Court, which will overrule the lower court and deem it an official act. You know I’m right.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It is not; it is a reasonable decision that most people would agree with if Trump were not the issue.
 

[John Dule]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

If a Republican president commits a crime and a lower court deems it an unofficial act, the decision will be appealed to the Republican Supreme Court, which will overrule the lower court and deem it an official act. You know I’m right.

Even as we speak now, a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. You know I'm right.

[DaleCooper]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

If a Republican president commits a crime and a lower court deems it an unofficial act, the decision will be appealed to the Republican Supreme Court, which will overrule the lower court and deem it an official act. You know I’m right.

Even as we speak now, a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. You know I'm right.

We live inside a dream.

[Cokeland Saxton]

No. It's obviously quite bad, but Dred Scott was beyond astronomically bad.

[VBM]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

If a Republican president commits a crime and a lower court deems it an unofficial act, the decision will be appealed to the Republican Supreme Court, which will overrule the lower court and deem it an official act. You know I’m right.

Even as we speak now, a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. You know I'm right.

I don’t get why you have so much faith in these Justices.

[John Dule]

If this changed the law so much, then why do I have a Con Law flashcard that I made for bar prep three days ago that reads “The president has absolute immunity for all official acts”?

I know that you know the next step after this is SCOTUS declaring that anything a Republican president does in an official act, and anything a Democrat president does is an unofficial act

The media really deserves a lot of blame for its failure to educate the American public about the basics of the law.

If a Republican president commits a crime and a lower court deems it an unofficial act, the decision will be appealed to the Republican Supreme Court, which will overrule the lower court and deem it an official act. You know I’m right.

Even as we speak now, a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between Earth and Mars. You know I'm right.

I don’t get why you have so much faith in these Justices.

In all honesty, I really don't have much faith in any SCOTUS post-Wickard. But it is still the most trustworthy of the three branches of government at this point.