The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.

The guidance says:

1. Courts cannot consider motive

2. An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law

3. Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ

4. Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)

5. Engagement with private parties is not an official act

6. Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not

7. Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist

So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.

That’s a loophole the size of the Hoover Dam.

You ignored a lot of other information in my comment.

But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.

Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.

So then nothing a President ever does can be considered premeditated. This timeline is fucking insane.

I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?

I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.

Please, someone tell me I’m missing something.

This is also why corporate and/or establishment types can justify voting for non-conservative, populist Trump and his lackeys. They’re getting so obscenely rich and powerful thanks to Trump’s SCOTUS picks that nothing else could possibly ever outweigh the short-term gains for them.

Regurgitation pieces require no formal journalistic training, can be produced with almost no research time, can be cranked out en masse, and can be subjectively framed to grab eyeballs because there’s no entity able to claim libel if it’s misrepresented. It’s yellow journalism, plain and simple, and gullible rubes lap that shit up without a second’s hesitation because it tells them something saucy that makes them feel vindicated.

They’re extrapolating trends from just over ONE year of data. The survey was started in 2023, which means statements like this ring very hollow:

Second, the year-over-year change in worry for this population is large and significant. In April 2023, 20.7 percent of those who could currently pay all of their bills were worried about the next six months; one year later, 26.2 percent reported worries, with nearly every demographic group showing large and significant increases as well. We did not observe such a year-over-year increase in our previous report (comparing January 2023 with January 2024).

And from that we get Matt Egan’s overarching conclusion that “wealthy Americans are struggling to make ends meet”, which conflicts with the findings that only 6.9% of people earning more than $150k/yr are reporting that they can’t currently make ends meet (6% of those making more than $100k/yr). Or, in other words, 93.1% of people earning more than $150k/yr can currently make ends meet. (someone tell Egan!) But the surveyors go on to claim that it’s a significant uptick from 3.4% a year ago, which is true (yay!). You know what it’s not a significant uptick from? The very next survey (i.e. July), which tallied a 6% rate of not being able to make ends meet. That number then fell to 3.0% in October before jumping again in January, then again in April.

Those numbers go up significantly when forecasting out 0-6 months, and then 7-12 months. The numbers for high earners go up to 32.5% and 33%, respectively. You know what’s happening in just under 6 months? A pretty significant election! And to what do these high earners attribute their inability to make ends meet? Job insecurity? Medical expenses? Global instability? Inflation?

Who the fuck knows?! The survey is decidedly silent on that front. But that didn’t stop Matt Egan from scrapping together the most fear-inducing, clickbait headline he could muster for our next dose of doom-fuel.

In 2018 then-President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the [Iran nuclear] deal, reimposing sanctions on Tehran that slashed its oil sales and battered its economy. In 2019, Iran started breaching the restrictions on its nuclear activities and then pushed far beyond them. It has now breached all the deal’s key restrictions, including on where, with what machines and to what level it can enrich uranium, as well as how much material it can stockpile.

$215,200, which includes $30k for environmental testing and monitoring. Tebuthiuron doesn’t readily break down and so will continue to kill plants in the area until it’s either physically removed or diluted somehow, which will likely take multiple years. Unless they excavate and replace the soil, no trees will grow there for quite some time. And even then it’ll take 30-40 years for them to get anywhere close to their original height.

Also boomers are both buying retirement homes and holding onto their previous homes, rather than letting them go back on the market and alleviate some of the shortage. They have more purchasing power than any of the younger generations because they have decades of equity built up, and they’re trying to keep their previous homes to pass onto their children. Both are contributing to the upward price pressure.

Indeed. Also, Republicans have already proposed dramatic cuts to the IRS, so we should be under no illusions about what will happen to this loophole and Direct File if Trump & Co. take control in November.

That article has given me a huge amount of information to think about. Thanks for sharing.

I think you’re right. I don’t think we’re far removed from a computer being attached to a firing pin such that electrical impulses cause microvibrations which force a firing pin into a cartridge with unimaginable rapidity. In that case, there’d be no trigger mechanism at all except a button and a microprocessor, and so our definitions will have to adapt rapidly to avoid unimaginable bloodshed.

There’s a lot in your comment that’s not necessarily right or wrong, it’s just harder for me to untangle, so instead I’ll address this very salient point:

you could also easily say constitutional organizists want to strip back any equality or progress our society has made via the courts.

The argument of originalists is very specifically that progress shouldn’t be made via the courts in the first place. It’s not the judiciary’s job to push us forward as a society, it’s their job to interpret the Constitution as it’s written. As soon as you open the door for a judge to push us “forward”, you invite them to define for themselves what “forward” means. I don’t think I can understate the damage that would do to this country if the shoe were on the other ideological foot and Christian nationalists were free to decide that “forward” means putting women in the kitchen as subservient partners in a heteronormative nuclear family. And you’re right that the really sinister problem with this particular SCOTUS is that they seem to pick and choose when they want to abide by their stated principles, but on its face originalism is more in line with what the Framers had in mind. It’s just that they also had a lot of other understandings about the American experiment which turned out to be laughably naïve.

The only way to get out of the moralizing doom loop you’re describing is to revert back to judges/justices being neutral arbiters of written law. It’s not foolproof, mind you, because it’s subject to the whims of overt partisans like Thomas and Alito, but it does have a certain philosophical consistency that’s hard to deny.

That’s not actually true. It’s certainly a trigger, but it’s not the trigger of the firearm. The trigger assembly responsible for activation of the hammer and firing pin would remain unaltered, but the button would activate some kind of rotating and/or vibrating apparatus which engages the trigger assembly over and over and over in rapid succession. They go into a lot of detail about this in the opinion, including the definitions they’re referencing with the word “trigger” (pp 7-14).

They’ve been doing that a lot, and for good reason. The whole gist of originalism, and the legitimate gripe conservative scholars have with substantive due process, is that during the latter half of the 20th century the judiciary usurped Congress’ power in actualizing new legal concepts and theories by creating rights out of thin air. Even RBG admitted that Roe was on shaky ground, because in a representative democracy the only entity capable of making laws is Congress. If the law says “the sky is red”, and that law creates obvious societal problems, it’s not the job of the judiciary to say, “no, the sky is blue”. The job of the judiciary is to say, “the law says ‘the sky is red’” and that’s the law that shall be enforced, and then to interpret the words if there’s any disagreement about what “red” means. A functional Congress elected by a sensible electorate in a healthy democracy free of corruption (HA!) would see the obvious error and pass an amendment that changed the law on the books into “the sky is blue.”

In striking down Roe, they clearly signaled that the only remedy would be Congressional action. From Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs:

The nine unelected Members of this Court do not possess the constitutional authority to override the democratic process and to decree either a pro-life or a pro-choice abortion policy for all 330 million people in the United States.

RBG herself on Roe:

The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate. The Supreme Court wrote modestly, it put forward no grand philosophy; but by requiring legislative reexamination of once customary sex-based classifications, the Court helped to ensure that laws and regulations would “catch up with a changed world.”

Roe v. Wade, in contrast, invited no dialogue with legislators. Instead, it seemed entirely to remove the ball from the legislators’ court.

And Roberts in Shelby v. Holder (a decision which I loathe):

That is why, in 2009, we took care to avoid ruling on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act when asked to do so, and instead resolved the case then before us on statutory grounds. But in issuing that decision, we expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so. Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare §4(b) unconstitutional.

In short, the only suitable remedy to legal conundrums is a new and updated law. The fact that our democracy has deteriorated to the point where Congressional representatives are really just mouthpieces for interest groups and have insufficient dignity to even attempt overt moral judgments about how to form a more perfect union, explains why the judiciary keeps very clearly reminding them what their job is. Political compromise is hard and takes immense amounts of work and sacrifice, and SCOTUS is reiterating that they’re not going to bail a dysfunctional Congress out by legislating from the bench.

The NFA says “by a single function of the trigger”. A button that activates a trigger rapidly with a motor would be legal, because the act’s definition is limited to the function of the trigger, not the action of the controller or the mechanics of the activation. Like it or not that’s the law as it stands, and that’s the only definition that matters unless and until we elect a majority of Congressional representatives who want to change it.

Some more effective than others…

You simply can’t have a conversation like a human being, can you?