Seems crazy! But just logical. If a President cannot commit a crime in the course of an official act, like giving an order to the military, how can you prosecute the person who follows the order? There’s a whole code of military conduct about “illegal orders.” All orders are legal now.
There is also every reason to think that this court will expand Trump v. U.S in his second term to extend immunity to those doing his bidding. I.e., “Our holding in Trump v. U.S. demands that government officials be able to enact the will of the executive without fear of criminal proceedings.”
Steve Inskeep raised this very issue with one of Trump’s “victorious” lawyers this AM, and then pressed him on it. The answer was unconvincing: it won’t happen because it’s never happened, and it’s never happened because of “Constitutional checks and balances.” Which SCOTUS has now eviscerated.
I blame the Founding Fathers, who apparently never considered either the possibility of a presidential candidate or judges lacking honor and some sort of positive morality, or the people being nitwit enough to elect such a person.
They did, actually. The very separation of powers that the 6 justices used as an excuse to place the President above the law was meant to be a safeguard against any one branch acting badly.
The safeguard against a Supreme Court acting badly is the amendment process. Is that a possibility (constitutionally speaking, not "how many D's and R's are in the Senate" speaking) for the immunity ruling?
It was intentionally made very hard to amend the Constitution, 2/3rd of House and Senate, then 3/4 of state legislatures. Given polarization (which the Framers did not design for) it is essentially impossible if either party sees the change to their disadvantage.
By the current court’s standard, precedent is meaningless. So, sure. But you’d need a new majority (2 current conservative members replace by liberals). And a new “case or controversy” that could rise to the Court for review.
Here’s a scenario, adopting, again, the current court’s methods. (Which are outrageous, but hey, geese, ganders). Thomas and Alito get on Thurston Howell’s private jet which disappears over the Pacific. The Dem Senate quickly confirms Justices Elie Mystal and Elizabeth Warren.
Not Warren. One of the Right's strategies is to nominate young judges who will there a looooong time. So, Warren is too old for this, even if she would be excellent
