KC Momkin: I mean, that didn't stop them from trying. I think a large number of lower court judges (and Jack Smith) should state they cannot follow a decision that side-steps the Constitutionally mandated process for changing core elements of the Constitution. It would be contrary to their oaths of office.

i think akhil amar reed captures something very important, which is that the roberts court rewrote article ii, which explicitly states that a president can be held criminally liable after impeachment (and which has long been understood to mean that he can be held liable after leaving office)

Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Courtwww.theatlantic.com Jurists who preach fidelity to the Constitution are making decisions that flatly contradict our founding document’s text and ideals.

The courts do not have the legislative authority to write out core elements of the Constitution. That would need to be done via amendments and bills signed into law.

I mean, that didn't stop them from trying. I think a large number of lower court judges (and Jack Smith) should state they cannot follow a decision that side-steps the Constitutionally mandated process for changing core elements of the Constitution. It would be contrary to their oaths of office.

And then the supreme court overturns the lower court’s decisions ignoring their rulings and you’re back to square one.

Force them to do it. Don't surrender preemptively. And also assert that whatever the DoJ does--as a part of the Executive--is presumptively legal under new Supreme Court precedent. Up-to-and-including ignoring Judicial Branch dicta.

Post