@RobGeorge He’s talking about what it would do in effect. Presumably the goal of court packing is to get more favorable outcomes. If that’s all the court becomes, then the constitution is no longer a real check anymore.
English
Jordan 🇺🇸
18.4K posts
I have a great deal of respect for Gregg, but debating the size of the court isn’t a threat to the Constitutional order. Court size falls under congressional purview. In fact the Republicans changed court size twice in reaction to the Andrew Johnson administration. Prior to that, the court size changed due to country (and district) expansion — a legitimate recommendation Khanna is floating. That said, limiting specific terms likely requires a constitutional amendment which is unlikely.
Gregg Nunziata@greggnunziata
This is a naked threat to the rule of law and our Constitutional order. Shameful. Some Democrats do not really oppose Trump's demagoguery and assault on the rule of law; they just don't like that it's right-coded. This moment calls for better leadership.
English
@sisepuede0911 @brad_polumbo @thepondering_ What is the courts job? Seems to me the people who advocate to pack the Supreme Court don’t want the law to be interpreted, they want favorable outcomes. If that’s the case why not just abolish or ignore the Supreme Court?
English
@brad_polumbo @thepondering_ appointing justices is inherently partisan already and changing the number of justices has been done multiple times
English
If Dems retake the Senate and there’s a SCOTUS vacancy in Trump’s final 2 years, do you think they should do to Trump what the GOP did to Obama — or are we obligated to confirm Trump’s nominees?
I wonder what you think Dems are ever permitted to do via political maneuvering
Gregg Nunziata@greggnunziata
Is was long properly understood in America that Court packing amounts to a knife to the heart of of the Constitutional order and the rule of law. If the next Democratic White House does this, it will accelerate, not reverse, the damage Trump has done to our democracy.
English
@TestLifz @thepondering_ Would we want a judge to question themselves on whether to rule the way the law requires vs rule the way that would get them reelected?
English
@LakerrJC @thepondering_ Best case is to push an amendment through to make the justices electable like many states do
English
The Constitution permits Congress to change the size of the court (by federal statute) and impose term limits (either by Constitutional amendment or, if you get really clever, also by federal statute)
You're probably too dumb to read this but I'm sure your caretaker can help ❤️
Spitfire@RealSpitfire
@RubenGallego Why do you hate the Constitution so much?
English
@arealboreddude @micah_erfan How did Obama levy war or give aid or comfort to our enemies?
English
Bad news, Brilyn, that Presidential Immunity you celebrated for Trump:
It applies to Obama, too.
Brilyn Hollyhand@BrilynHollyhand
The mugshot that millions want to see:
English
@radicallymid @thepondering_ This is obviously not what the court said because this is the special counsels argument of "private ends".
English
@thepondering_ WHEN ACTING AS the president. That's the key, if you can separate the action from that of the president vs that as a private individual then immunity does not hold
English
SCOTUS held that exercising prosecutorial and investigative authority and corresponding with DOJ officials, even for a sham or improper purpose, are core powers, not unofficial acts
Tommy Paine@radicallymid
The court clearly outlined 3 buckets. Core powers, official acts, and private acts…if it were impossible to separate private acts it wouldn’t have been its own category.
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus You realize SCOTUS has acknowledged that there are powers exclusive to the president before Trump v US?
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus That would be consistent if that's how modern doctrine operated but instead we keep expanding the President's exclusive zone and limiting Congress's.
I prefer to say that neither actually has exclusive powers and the courts have to do a balancing analysis in each case.
English
Immunity for official acts, I would argue, is actually one of the most basic possible propositions you could get from the Constitution. The entire document makes no sense without it.
If Congress can make laws which govern what the president is and is not allowed to do with his official power, then they can amend the Constitution without amending it. Simple as that.
Dilan Esper@dilanesper
2. This means that it would have been extremely hard to prosecute Joe Biden and even harder to convict him. He didn't need immunity. 3. The immunity theory was made up and found nowhere in the Constitution and contrary to its text. This is important!
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Ok? I’m failing to see the point here
If the president uses his powers to undermine exclusive powers of Congress then the same issue applies.
Now reverse that, and you reach my point.
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Changing legislation is not the only way to undermine Congress powers. Just like changing the text of an EO is not the only way to undermine POTUS executive power.
Article 1 grants all legislative power to Congress but it does not say that it only grants legislative powers.
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Yes if he undermines it. That’s the point. Legislative power rests with Congress. The president can’t change their legislation
In the areas where the president has exclusive power, Congress can’t regulate that either.
It’s consistent.
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus The text says that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce, for instance, not merely the power to draft and vote on regulations.
If POTUS uses his power to undermine such regulation, for instance, then that is also an infringement on Congress' Constitutional powers.
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Congress has the exclusive power to make binding domestic commercial law. The president has a constitutional obligation to execute that law. If he changes or alters the law as written then he would be intruding on Congress.
I don’t understand your point
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Run the argument exactly in reverse and say that since Congress has exclusive power to, say, regulate interstate commerce that POTUS conduct can't interfere when exercising his powers.
IMO neither maximal case works. You have to treat both symmetrically, some kind of balance.
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus I think there is a uniform rule for exclusive powers of the president. Meaning those the constitution grants solely to the president.
Congress can’t regulate those.
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Each Congressional power in their own right and determine where the balance is.
I do not think there is any uniform, formalist rule that can be applied to all powers. Some powers are narrow, some are broad, and each has its own intent.
English
@BenjaminSmith13 @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus So you think it would be constitutional for Congress to pass a law saying "pardon shall only be issued to persons who have been incarcerated for 10 or more years"
English
@LakerrJC @AndrewDSteele94 @ClarenceMaximus Hah. Commander and Chief.... Commander in Chief obviously. Fingers let me down.
English
@theh0llow_1 @thepondering_ Why would she be steelmanning an argument that’s not the subject of the case?
Maybe to say that a narrow version of immunity would be more "intuitively appealing"
English
1. If I have to choose between ex-presidents facing silly indictments or them becoming virtually unaccountable, I'll take the former
2. What's the limiting principle in the immunity decision that permits a president to be prosecuted if they try to use the military or DOJ to murder their rivals?
Sarah Isgur@whignewtons
I would have written the immunity decision differently but let’s be real: DOJ reindicted Trump on the exact same 4 counts. SCOTUS didn’t shield him; voters did. The person it shielded was Joe Biden. Does anyone doubt this admin would have indicted him for nonsense?
English
@theh0llow_1 @thepondering_ She literally says narrow immunity has never been at issue here
English