Sooo...if the Supreme Court believes that the next president will be Democratic,

[Baitball Blogger]

do you think they'll start backpedaling on their mission to hedge their opinions to give more power to the executive branch?

[mucifer]

1. That's why we need a blue wave. We need some laws that protect us from the supreme court.

[BComplex]

2. If Kamala wins this like we hope she will, the supremes days are numbered, and they know it.

That is the FIRST thing that needs to be fixed in the government.

[moonscape]

9. We need Congress too.

[BComplex]

11. Absolutely!!

Both houses!

[TwilightZone]

3. Not until a case involves Harris, should she win in November.

Then, they'll make the claim that the prior rulings were specific to Trump.

[edisdead]

7. They don't even need to do that

in the wording it says “Deemed official”.

They will always be able ti say the act was political or somesuch nonsense.

[moonscape]

4. No, they'll be busy plotting

how to keep it from happening (next pres being a Dem)

[J_William_Ryan]

5. "...do you think they'll start backpedaling on their mission...to give more power to the executive branch?"

No.

They know that unlike Republican presidents, Democratic presidents respect the rule of law and follow the Constitution.

They’ll continue to empower the Imperial Presidency in anticipation of the next authoritarian Republican regime.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. It really is up to the Democrats to see the future and make laws that the Supreme Court can't

sabotage.

[Mister Ed]

6. I think they've built in a mechanism to ensure that only Republican presidents benefit from their decision.

They've declared that presidents are immune from prosecution for anything they do within the course of their presidential duties.

So, who decides if an act is within the course of the president's duties? Why, the courts do, of course - and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

So, if a Republican president commits a crime, and prosecutors launch a case on the grounds that the crime was not an official act, the case will slowly make its way through the courts. If it rises to review by the Supreme Court, the Six Ayatollahs will declare the crime to have been committed within the course of the Republican president's duties. Case closed.

If a Democrat is similarly accused, the same corrupt justices will declare that the act was not performed in the course of presidential duties. Carry on with the prosecution.

DU'ers with greater legal knowledge than mine, please let me know if this seems likely and plausible.

[Elessar Zappa]

10. Sounds right to me.

But I’m no legal expert.

[StevieM]

12. I was thinking the same thing.

That's a great analysis that you gave.

They will also do the same thing with these bounty hunter laws that allow ordinary citizens to sue people over actions that do not directly affect them, like the law in Texas allowing people to sue someone who provides an abortion. The court will find reasons to allow the GOP laws while rejecting any similar laws passed by Democrats.

Sonya Sotomayer was right. Our democracy is in serious danger.

[Metaphorical]

13. There's another point I think few people are considering

If (please make it so) Harris wins in November, she faces a comparatively rare situation.

Because of Moscow Mitch, Trump managed to appoint three justices in four years to the Supreme Court - Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and Barret (we were robbed of both Ginsburg and Garland). Over an eight year period, presidents usually get, on average, about three justices. Biden has had one. This means the odds are good that Harris will get at least one and maybe two justices (Alito and Thomas are likeliest) to appoint (and, dreaming big here, perhaps as many as four if she makes it through eight years). This might also be hastened by the possibility of retaking Congress, which I suspect may very well lead to either or both of them deciding retirement is a good idea.

A lot of ifs, admittedly, but it never hurts to dream.