43 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Jos1463's avatar

SCOTUS has been utterly corrupted - two of them in particular, in another time, would have been told they need to go or been impeached for blatant violations of the code of conduct/ethics. As I'm sure you know, SCOTUS has made bribery of any government official very hard or impossible to prosecute and while bribery of the President is specifically unlawful in the constitution, their order saying all official acts are presumed immune and none of them can be used in a prosecution, essentially makes bribery of a president unable to be prosecuted - another "how on earth can they not have thought of that" part of this ruling. So no, SCOTUS hasn't realized what it unleashed, it thinks the 3 dissenters were just being hysterical, and it has generated a lot more unnecessary work for lower courts by not merely addressing the issues in this Jan 6 case against the convicted felon but trying to rule 'for the ages'. But as you're the lawyer and I'm just a mad citizen of the world, I look forward to your perspective after you've thought about it some more. Seems to me the decision was based on partisan bias and special interests wanting the convicted felon to not be hampered in his Project 2025 objectives should he win the election in November. Logical legal analysis of the case wasn't the top priority. The DC appeals court did that and if SCOTUS didn't have its own agenda it was pushing, it would have denied cert. IMHO.

Expand full comment
Phil Johnson's avatar

I will have to think about that one. I am retired and have to consult my old text books, etc. - - and give it some more thought. BTW, read Carlos Lozada's book "What We Were Thinking". Awesome analysis of the current contretemps; he read 150 other published books on it. I am on my second run-through on the book, because it is so dense. Pass it on..

Expand full comment
Jos1463's avatar

FYI Steve Vladeck just said on the Jack podcast that this immunity decision would have made Nixon immune from prosecution

Expand full comment
Phil Johnson's avatar

Wow. And his reasoning was.... (I am not familiar with Steve V- - being a newcomer to the substack culture).

Expand full comment
Jos1463's avatar

Vladeck didn’t go into details. Not that I can recall. Judge J Michael Luttig rips this decision to shreds in a LegalAF interview with Michael Popok https://youtu.be/thzKQyaeuB4?si=GQQo3BLfynlo5xyx

Expand full comment
Jos1463's avatar

Cheers.

Expand full comment