The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Thursday on Donald Trump's bid to secure sweeping presidential immunity from criminal prosecution

Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?

“That could well be an official act,” Trump lawyer John Sauer says

  • Dragomus@lemmy.world
    17·
    7 months ago

    Well before this hearing I had the impression this SC is looking for ways to stack delay on delay without taking too much flak themselves. It showed in the weird narrow beam wording of their restrictions when they took on this case. It showed in the extra weeks they took to plan this hearing. And it is now showing in the questions they ask …

    I will not be surprised if they proclaim “a president has no total immunity, and only immunity in presidential matters, but the lower courts need to figure out if Trump’s actions were (for) personal (gain) or presidential.”

    And with that the ball is dropped and it rolled in a sewage drain where it’s hard to reach before the elections are in the rear view mirror.

    It even includes another time loop for when it eventually does resurface back on the SC’s lap for them to decide if his actions were presidential.

    But by that time there will be a “Year one Dictator”, proclaiming himself to be America’s first great dictator, while ordering his rivals to be imprisoned, indicted and or shot.

    And the people will loudly wonder, “Who is there to stop him? Where are the checks and balances?” But loudly will turn into a whimper then a whisper until it is a small voice in an empty room.