Derrell Durrett: It's very suspicious, because it basically means, "when we choose the president is liable, then he will be," keeping their powder dry for when it's a president they disagree with being charged for something they figure is worth it.

Just started reading the immunity opinion and it is *so* striking how Roberts emphasizes this is the first time a former president has been criminally prosecuted, addressing it very antiseptically and without reference to the first time a president tried to block the peaceful transfer of power.

"certain tape recordings" (we won't dwell on what those were and we're now kind of sad about that precedent)

Again, Roberts majority has everything upside down; yes, we do want to restrain presidents from committing crimes, and have fear of prosecution for those crimes

Ok, he does finally admit after all that that the president is not above the law (p. 14), seemingly an empty concession given what follows.

It's very suspicious, because it basically means, "when we choose the president is liable, then he will be," keeping their powder dry for when it's a president they disagree with being charged for something they figure is worth it.

SCOTUS really twerking on the supremacy concept

Post