Mark Shore: I wrote that angrily, and deliberately pushed the boundaries of what I thought possible. But then I saw that Jackson wrote pretty much the same thing in her dissent.

*SUPREME COURT PARTIALLY BACKS TRUMP ON IMMUNITY 6-3 conservatives with some partials. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...

www.supremecourt.gov

So if Biden issues an executive order that Trump, as a grave and ongoing threat to the Republic, be summarily executed by a special forces team, would that be legal? Though I suppose he could resign and be pardoned by President Harris, just to be sure.

Only if that action is "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and there's no way it is.

But having a discussion with DoJ officials where he directs *them* to do it *is* one of the things specifically cited there, right?

I wrote that angrily, and deliberately pushed the boundaries of what I thought possible. But then I saw that Jackson wrote pretty much the same thing in her dissent.

oh, and that Sotomayor explicitly did so in almost *exactly* those terms

I mean if he makes an executive determination that such action is necessary to protect the republic from enemies foreign and domestic?

it's the paradox of intolerance, scaled-up to a constitutional democracy under existential threat

the bet is that the pointy heads aren't brazen enough to out brazen rich fuckers with an army of morons at their disposal and a TV channel to rally more morons

here's my question.... Didn't they validate a losing president seizing power and preventing the incoming president from taking the reigns? There's your blueprint if Brandon "loses"

If there's an executive finding of foreign interference producing enough fraud to cloud the actual outcome of the election, even if your motive is simply to cling to power, courts can't consider motives, so you're good, right?

that's how I read it

Post