• danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    2 days ago

    But he also says that it is not for the district court to decide what application of subpoenas is “improper”; rather, he claims that because the presidency is an elected office, it is for the American people “to decide whether a President’s views on such topics and the policies that result from those views are ‘improper.'”

    What a dumb fucking argument. People elected the president, so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      2 days ago

      Welcome to Unitary Executive Theory…a fancy-sounding way to say “dictator”.

        • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 day ago

          Well, they coined it, and it only happened because Mitch held up Garlands nomination along with hundreds of lower courts.

          So really, this is all Obamas fault for not pushing back against that harder (partial /s). Thanks Obama.

    • Ironfist79@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 days ago

      I thought we already did that? HIPAA rules should still apply and what business does any elected official have looking at somebody’s medical records?

    • grte@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      An argument so stupid that the financial situation of the judges who made it should definitely be looked into.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      And yet Republicans make that argument [1] constantly.

      [1] Argument only applicable for Republican Presidents, of course.