Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by BadHumans on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:47PM (#40851099)

I'm certainly not law trained and open to being wrong so if you could find the energy I'm happy to listen. My reading of the situation is that the main confusion here is what constitutes an official act and a non-official act. With the removal of the Chevron Deference, all of the interpretation of ambiguous law now rest with the courts.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by lolinder on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:57PM (#40851211)

It's nothing about you personally, it's that this thread is filled with hundreds of bad takes and I actually can't keep up. The bullshit asymmetry principle is working hard today because actually doing the work of understanding the law takes time.

The short version is that Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguous, it was always about whether an administrative agency's interpretation of the law was permissible. The subjects under consideration here do not fall under administrative law [0] and so Chevron would never have been relevant.

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic... by BadHumans on Monday July 01, 2024 @07:23PM (#40851896)

Ok. My misunderstanding was that this only applied to an administrative agency's interpretation of the law. That is my mistake. However, I still believe that gives a pretty large latitude for abuse considering the GOP is openly antagonistic to many of these agencies like the IRS and FDA.

[ Parent | on HN ]