The main contention today from the conservative justices is that we should worry more about the harm/threat of politically-motivated prosecutions of ex-presidents than of presidents criminally abusing their power.
It’s just an insanely naive, ahistorical understanding of how political power works.
Throughout the morning, conservative justices have been citing infirmities in the criminal justice system writ large as reasons to give former presidents immunity, rather than things that ought to be fixed for everyone.
Roberts is concerned that the only protection against bad faith prosecutions of presidents is the good faith of prosecutors. He laments how easily grand juries indict. It’s touching how concerned the justices are about this stuff — but only when the target is the most powerful person in the world.
COURT: allowing states to enforce the express insurrection disqualification in the U.S. Constitution would lead to "chaos" but it's fine for a state to have its own immigration system
BREAKING: SCOTUS allows Texas’s SB 4 to go into effect, allowing state criminal enforcement of a state immigration law. More to come at Law Dork. www.lawdork.com
While we find that the former president is plainly disqualified by section 3's history and text, that would make some violent people angry and some powerful people sad, and based on our interpretive standard of putting on a clown wig and honking our big red noses we pretend-find it does not apply
