I guess the question is what prosecution is accomplishing. Deterrence and retributive justice aren’t really a thing when you’re talking about someone with serious mental illness. Maybe you get a dangerous person off the street for a bit, but once they’re out you’ve probably made their illness worse.
I don’t know why you bother with these people. Anyone who is this dug in on a candidate who would turn 86 before the end of his second term just isn’t a serious person.
It’s not just that he dismisses the danger. In the very next sentence, he has the gall to assert that an entirely speculative danger (presidency cannibalizing itself) is somehow MORE LIKELY than the danger that has already manifested itself (president that believes he is above the law).
Coming in 2034: Well that didn't go well either, but have no fear! We are proud to introduce our new AI chatbot, Madison. Want to know if a firearms restriction complies with the 2nd Amendment? Just ask Madison! Stop asking us. Please.
More like "You come after me, I'll commence lecturing you about the follies of mutual assured destruction during the cold war and beyond until you either fall asleep or run away screaming."
@gabrielmalor.bsky.social At first blush this seems like an
(exceedingly rare) example of pop culture references used appropriately in a legal opinion, but the Taylor Swift reference a couple sentences earlier is forced and a bit cringey. What's the overall verdict?
