I was thinking yesterday what a mockery of the concept of justiceability some of their past decisions have made. Like the court is forced into a Sophie’s choice on whether to agree to let a Captain Planet villain go free or let the lawyers drain the fund. And the court could also just flatly do a “in a one-time non-precedent-setting ruling, those assets are obviously still under your control and companies cannot indemnify individuals against actual knowing wrongdoing”… but that would never be used in that way for the benefit of mere plebs.
But it does throw the whole idea of injusticeable claims right out the window. Bush had no claim at all, he literally still got thrown the election in a special one-time-ruling.
What they did was a valid exercise of their power, just an extremely distasteful one. Right? As such, they’re literally, by the text of the constitution, an unjusticeable claim. The concept is facially incoherent, the court can justice anything it wants.
The things they choose not to address, literally are because they’re things they don’t care about using their assumed powers to address. They literally invented the whole concept of a “one-off calvinball ruling” and formalized the concept already.
