Where Was This Supreme Court About Nine Years Ago?

[wellst0nev0ter]

Here's Justice Kennedy's majority opinon on how Captain Duckhunt is now the legal equivalent to God:

While these officials were not "above the law," Justice Kennedy said, it did mean that courts should recognize "the paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties."

Compare that to the SCOTUS's MAJORITY OPINON in the 1997 case you all might recall Clinton vs. Jones, you know where the justices found that it's perfectly okay for a sitting president to be harassed by a frivolous lawsuit:

In sum, "t is settled law that the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President of the United States." Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 753-754. If the Judiciary may severely burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the President's official conduct, and if it may direct appropriate process to the President himself, it mustfollow that the federal courts have power to determine the legality of his unofficial conduct. The burden on the President's time and energy that is a mere by product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions. We therefore hold that the doctrine of separation of powers does not require federal courts to stay all private actions against the President until he leaves office.

<insert snarky comment about "SCOTUS = GOP" here>

[baldguy]

1. You forget: GOP=good, Democrates=bad

[gonefishing]

2. It is a more complicated legal question then that!

When you fuck a country that is OK. If you fuck an intern it's really bad.

I usually try not to be vulgar but sometimes the F&*% replacement just doesn't work.

[baldguy]

4. Its not more complicated than that.

This is the most corrupt group of people to hold power in this country in history, and when it comes to deciding a question of power - how they get it and how they keep it - they will always always always side with their political allies.

[teamster633]

3. Thank you for bringing this up.

As the assault on our republic escalates and we continue to hurtle down that slippery slope to fascism I've often wondered why no one mentions the fact that the same scotus that ruled:

The burden on the President's time and energy that is a mere by product of such review surely cannot be considered as onerous as the direct burden imposed by judicial review and the occasional invalidation of his official actions.

and proved to be SO fucking wrong in this ruling could then be allowed to select Clinton's replacement. Setting the stage for a failed impeachment wasn't enough for this crowd. Their flagrant disregard for the rule of law is truly frightening.