Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cheez Whiz's avatar

So I read the opinion (thanks to Emptywheel)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Everyone should read it. It's a real piece of work. Your example of citing Clinton v. Jones as a reason for presidential immunity is a solid example of the calibre of their thinking. They roll out a shopping list of references to all the power a president has, then conclude there is a "presumption of Presidential immunity". And that's it. Thats their whole argument. The remainder of the opinion is dedicated to blowing enough smoke to hide a battleship. The whole thing is deliberately, maddeningly vague, in proper Constitutional style. I think the only question to ask is "will this case give the judiciary and SC in particular more power?" That's the side they will come down on. This decision sets the Court above Congress and the Executive as the ultimate decider if a President can be charged with any crime.

Expand full comment
Bern's avatar

Henceforth is a fine cat name. We had a deaf, blind hermaphrodite fraidy cat who seemed to think that if he could not see us, we could not see him. Good dresser tho – always in a tux. He was the Edward Everett Horton of cats.

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts