- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 34,236
- Reaction score
- 34,496
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
In its landmark colossal error Decision, Trump v. United States, the majority, extended its made-up, contra-constitutional doctrine of presidential immunity to virtually any colorable claim of an "official act" for the former president. “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. Even worse, “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives,” the justices ruled. And a jury cannot learn about the other parts of a criminal conspiracy that may involve official acts. Like the Wizard of Oz, the Court essentially said, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain".
The decision was immediately met with incredulity and opprobrium from every corner of the legal community for its brazen disregard for the constitutional order (indeed, I can't find any legitimate legal scholar that supports it - and, no, Jonathan Turley doesn't count). But now the rubber is meeting the road. Trump has been reelected.
When SCOTUS issued that decision, Trump was the former President, meaning that any abuse of office based upon the decision was "merely" theoretical and speculative. Not so, now. (This Court often ignores the real implications of its decisions which have literally cost many lives, and pretends it's just interpreting the law, not making it. And, no, I cannot adequately express my contempt for the current scurrilous majority.) Now, in the face of the already blatantly corrupt behavior of the President-elect and his conspiratorial cabal, the Court will be faced with a true dilemma: do they actually believe what they wrote, and are they willing to sacrifice the Constitution and democracy itself to defend it? Or, is it already too late? Can the Supreme Court itself survive the coming challenge?
The decision was immediately met with incredulity and opprobrium from every corner of the legal community for its brazen disregard for the constitutional order (indeed, I can't find any legitimate legal scholar that supports it - and, no, Jonathan Turley doesn't count). But now the rubber is meeting the road. Trump has been reelected.
When SCOTUS issued that decision, Trump was the former President, meaning that any abuse of office based upon the decision was "merely" theoretical and speculative. Not so, now. (This Court often ignores the real implications of its decisions which have literally cost many lives, and pretends it's just interpreting the law, not making it. And, no, I cannot adequately express my contempt for the current scurrilous majority.) Now, in the face of the already blatantly corrupt behavior of the President-elect and his conspiratorial cabal, the Court will be faced with a true dilemma: do they actually believe what they wrote, and are they willing to sacrifice the Constitution and democracy itself to defend it? Or, is it already too late? Can the Supreme Court itself survive the coming challenge?
