https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship
Roberts’s opinion in Trump, however, seems to go even further than Trump’s lawyer did. The Constitution, after all, states that the president “shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” So, if presidential authority is “conclusive and preclusive” when presidents exercise their constitutionally granted powers, the Court appears to have ruled that yes, Trump could order the military to assassinate one of his political opponents. And nothing can be done to him for it.
We are in dangerous territory when a Supreme Court Justice's dissent is based on outlandish hypothetical crimes, that have not been committed.
ReplyDeleteChief Roberts slapped down Sotomayor for ignoring the Constitution.
“Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an “established understanding” that “former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.” Post, at 9. Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges—let alone for his conduct in office. And accordingly no court has ever been faced with the question of a President’s immunity from prosecution. All that our Nation’s practice establishes on the subject is silence. Coming up short on reasoning, the dissents repeatedly level variations of the accusation that the Court has rendered the President “above the law.”” Roberts wrote.
It's insane disrespect for the court to have a dissent written like it was made for Twitter. Its just a bunch of buzzwords slapped together. Sotomayor is living up to her reputation as the least intelligent human on the bench.
DeleteHer "dissent" was possibly written by others, who dictated to her their talking points.
Delete