• fox2263@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I think…and I could be wrong… that the Supreme Court has to agree with said official act.

    When they’re all corrupt, they won’t agree unless you’re their sugar daddy.

    • nothingcorporateOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      He should fire them as an official act, hire new supreme court justices who on his last day in office declare presidents can no longer do whatever the hell they want and kneecap Trump from undoing shit as soon as he gets into office.

      Would he do something so cool? Of course fucking not.

    • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is correct. The ruling leaves it completely open to interpretation by the Supreme Court, regarding what constitutes an official act. The ruling was never a power gift to the presidency, it was a power grab by by the Supreme Court.

    • thawed_caveman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I thought the same. It seems clear that the Supreme Court intended that ruling for use by their political side, if a Democrat tries to use it that’s the instant they’ll overturn it.

      Which would be one way to get rid of it i suppose

      • davidagain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        They’ll just rule that it couldn’t be a valid presidential act because it’s not constitutional for some batshit crazy made up reason. Meanwhile armed insurrection against the US government is FINE because 'MURCA.