Is Supreme Court Playing 3D Chess?

[BigPapaWhit]

Today's ruling seems on the surface like a victory for DJT. However, the High Court continues to put limits on the Executive Branch's ability to act without specific guidance(delegation) from Congress. So, whomever wins will have limited ability to take action.

My early interpretation is that Government and progress (economic, administrative, and technological) will grind to a halt. Congress has shown little ability to pass meaningful legislation. In that absence of legislation, the Executive Branch has used liberal interpretations of broad laws to fill gaps. The Supreme Court has put restraints in place over the last few terms. It seems that SCOTUS is putting Congress on notice to pass better, cleaner bills. If my memory serves me correct, this is something Scalia said repeatedly.

Bad news for citizens is that Congress has been notoriously cautious in sticking their necks out. Now some might see this as victory for business with fewer regulations interfering with commerce. On the other hand, with fewer checks in place we may see a new rises in utility, streaming, cell phone and internet bills if lawmakers do not act. Why those two in particular? Those respective lobbies have been pushing back on any regulation to reign in consolidation or price controls. When Congress has failed to act, multiple administrations have used their executive powers of oversight to take action. Overreach? Perhaps? But industries with huge resources Energy, Telecom, Tech can move much faster than the government. Sometimes that is good but at what cost to citizen consumers? Privacy protections, right to repair act, free and open internet, pollution controls, energy evolution, poor infrastructure, urban sprawl...

Back to original point. Today's decision may be a victory for Trump but big picture might say the Executive Branch is losing. Whomever is in power will see limitations on their ability to execute without specific delegation from Congress. Or did I get it all wrong?

 

[Allornothing]

Today's ruling seems on the surface like a victory for DJT. However, the High Court continues to put limits on the Executive Branch's ability to act without specific guidance(delegation) from Congress. So, whomever wins will have limited ability to take action.

My early interpretation is that Government and progress (economic, administrative, and technological) will grind to a halt. Congress has shown little ability to pass meaningful legislation. In that absence of legislation, the Executive Branch has used liberal interpretations of broad laws to fill gaps. The Supreme Court has put restraints in place over the last few terms. It seems that SCOTUS is putting Congress on notice to pass better, cleaner bills. If my memory serves me correct, this is something Scalia said repeatedly.

Bad news for citizens is that Congress has been notoriously cautious in sticking their necks out. Now some might see this as victory for business with fewer regulations interfering with commerce. On the other hand, with fewer checks in place we may see a new rises in utility, streaming, cell phone and internet bills if lawmakers do not act. Why those two in particular? Those respective lobbies have been pushing back on any regulation to reign in consolidation or price controls. When Congress has failed to act, multiple administrations have used their executive powers of oversight to take action. Overreach? Perhaps? But industries with huge resources Energy, Telecom, Tech can move much faster than the government. Sometimes that is good but at what cost to citizen consumers? Privacy protections, right to repair act, free and open internet, pollution controls, energy evolution, poor infrastructure, urban sprawl...

Back to original point. Today's decision may be a victory for Trump but big picture might say the Executive Branch is losing. Whomever is in power will see limitations on their ability to execute without specific delegation from Congress. Or did I get it all wrong?

"Government and progress". Those two things do not work hand-in-hand.

I think I agree with your premise for this post, but the gov't doesn't make money. The gov't spends OUR money, and places restrictions on how that money is made.

 

[Solid Orange Blood]

Gotta take a few hours to delve into the ruling and it's implications.

 

[gardentiger]

Today's ruling seems on the surface like a victory for DJT. However, the High Court continues to put limits on the Executive Branch's ability to act without specific guidance(delegation) from Congress. So, whomever wins will have limited ability to take action.

My early interpretation is that Government and progress (economic, administrative, and technological) will grind to a halt. Congress has shown little ability to pass meaningful legislation. In that absence of legislation, the Executive Branch has used liberal interpretations of broad laws to fill gaps. The Supreme Court has put restraints in place over the last few terms. It seems that SCOTUS is putting Congress on notice to pass better, cleaner bills. If my memory serves me correct, this is something Scalia said repeatedly.

Bad news for citizens is that Congress has been notoriously cautious in sticking their necks out. Now some might see this as victory for business with fewer regulations interfering with commerce. On the other hand, with fewer checks in place we may see a new rises in utility, streaming, cell phone and internet bills if lawmakers do not act. Why those two in particular? Those respective lobbies have been pushing back on any regulation to reign in consolidation or price controls. When Congress has failed to act, multiple administrations have used their executive powers of oversight to take action. Overreach? Perhaps? But industries with huge resources Energy, Telecom, Tech can move much faster than the government. Sometimes that is good but at what cost to citizen consumers? Privacy protections, right to repair act, free and open internet, pollution controls, energy evolution, poor infrastructure, urban sprawl...

Back to original point. Today's decision may be a victory for Trump but big picture might say the Executive Branch is losing. Whomever is in power will see limitations on their ability to execute without specific delegation from Congress. Or did I get it all wrong?

If the minimum effect is that 3 letter agencies curtaiil flip flopping interpretation of statutes based on party power that would be a small win. An example woul be WATUSA.

 

[Clemson Goat]

AOC has it under control ... I will be filing articles of impeachment against the SCOTUS once we return. Democrat way or you will be canceled.

Yet it's the republicans that's destroying our democracy. 🤣😅🤣

 

[dbjork6317]

Today's ruling seems on the surface like a victory for DJT. However, the High Court continues to put limits on the Executive Branch's ability to act without specific guidance(delegation) from Congress. So, whomever wins will have limited ability to take action.

My early interpretation is that Government and progress (economic, administrative, and technological) will grind to a halt. Congress has shown little ability to pass meaningful legislation. In that absence of legislation, the Executive Branch has used liberal interpretations of broad laws to fill gaps. The Supreme Court has put restraints in place over the last few terms. It seems that SCOTUS is putting Congress on notice to pass better, cleaner bills. If my memory serves me correct, this is something Scalia said repeatedly.

Bad news for citizens is that Congress has been notoriously cautious in sticking their necks out. Now some might see this as victory for business with fewer regulations interfering with commerce. On the other hand, with fewer checks in place we may see a new rises in utility, streaming, cell phone and internet bills if lawmakers do not act. Why those two in particular? Those respective lobbies have been pushing back on any regulation to reign in consolidation or price controls. When Congress has failed to act, multiple administrations have used their executive powers of oversight to take action. Overreach? Perhaps? But industries with huge resources Energy, Telecom, Tech can move much faster than the government. Sometimes that is good but at what cost to citizen consumers? Privacy protections, right to repair act, free and open internet, pollution controls, energy evolution, poor infrastructure, urban sprawl...

Back to original point. Today's decision may be a victory for Trump but big picture might say the Executive Branch is losing. Whomever is in power will see limitations on their ability to execute without specific delegation from Congress. Or did I get it all wrong?

My understanding (from some very, very brief reading) is the ruling basically says that the President has immunity for “official actions” but no immunity for unofficial actions, however it doesn’t define what official actions are.

So now it goes back to the courts to decide if the things Trump is indicted for were official actions or not, which will also likely make it up to the Supreme Court. So this ruling means it’s highly improbable that Trump will ever actually see trial for any of his actions while he was President.

This is a dangerously vague ruling. A President, more or less, now has authoritative power as long as they can argue they were “official actions.” The President having to act within the law or facing prosecution has always been a key aspect of the American rule of law, and now that’s effectively gone.

It is now simply up to the moral/ethical whims of the President in terms of how they exercise their power. And that’s a negative, given that just about every President in our history has sought to expand their power and the reach of the executive branch, and most over the last century have been egotistical opportunists whose morals shift with the wind, and in including the Presidents I like in that category.