But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly stated that the president "is not above the law" and immunity is only a factor when it involves an "official act" — the justices sent the case back to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump's case were "official" — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities, according to the trio of dissenting justices.
Kind of ironic. Those who wrote the opinion say that the President would not have absolute immunity while the dissenting justices insist that he will.
ReplyDeleteNothing ironic. They made a distinction through which any authoritarian president can do anything as long as he says it is official presidential duty
DeleteAlso, the unspoken truth is that Robert's cleverly made his ruling overly broad so that if necessary SCOTUS can make a distinction.
ReplyDeleteSo clever nobody realized what he did?!
Delete