Loving the RTs and likes! But please read, as well. I lay out why the justices made the definition of "official acts" so vague:
So that they can rule it's official if it's a Republican, unofficial if it's a Democrat.
In the wake of the "immunity" decision, the shocked press focused on how this hurts Jack Smith's case.
But it's much worse. The Supreme Court just blessed Trump's desire to be a dictator.
And they found a way to give that power only to Republicans.
www.salon.com/2024/07/02/t...
Read the article, which answers these questions. You should always read before asking what I think, on the very strong chance that's addressed in my paid work.
Amanda, I *did* read the article. I *always* read your articles. And Digby’s, Lucian’s, and Chauncey’s.
You said the ruling was for Trump; you say these kinds of things are done by the right for themselves only; you didn’t say whether you think Biden should try to use this new authority.
Yes, you note the ruling is for Republican Presidents only. The closest you come to addressing my question is: “Biden orders a hit on a political enemy? That's outrageous and therefore cannot be "official."” Which isn’t your opinion on whether Biden should try some supra-official act.
Believe me, I wasn’t trying to troll you or some such. I just genuinely want your opinion on whether you think Biden should try something that we would ordinarily consider criminal.
No need to snark at me.
