i think akhil amar reed captures something very important, which is that the roberts court rewrote article ii, which explicitly states that a president can be held criminally liable after impeachment (and which has long been understood to mean that he can be held liable after leaving office)
Jurists who preach fidelity to the Constitution are making decisions that flatly contradict our founding document’s text and ideals.
Seems like their plan may be to amass as much power as possible and force a constitutional crisis/convention. Rewrite the rules forever. Why would they not?
Obligatory comment about how he was hoodwinked by pseudo-historical work “showing” that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms.
i think the conservatives on the supreme court simply were/are longing for a dictator in general and trump specifically
Here's the thing about this passage. Roberts didn't fail to pull the sides together. I think he's been full of merde this whole time. He's played the game of saying he's not partisan and that the Court isn't either. But it's not credible, hasn't been since Bush v Gore, at least.
Impeachment removes you from office, so being found criminally liable would have to occur after you leave office by definition, right?
In the UK, we have had it proven to us that "long been understood" is no basis for underpinning a democracy. If it isn't explicitly stated, the far right will worm a way around it then impose their warped will.
They have been rewriting the constitution since Trump gave them the majority.
This ruling should be ignored for its unconstitutional meaning.
It is the most egregious case yet of the court inventing new forms of immunity, but is a natural extension of what they've given to police and prosecutors over the course of decades (which the liberal justices have often signed on to to varying degrees).