Opinion basically comes down to "official actions are immune, unofficial aren't" and the court says that since lower courts have not made a determination on that question, they need to go do that. Beyond me to determine how feasible that is, but absolutely delays the trial.
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.
In the immunity case his discussions are off the table. But a direction to assassinate someone as opposed to discussions about it would be diff I think.
But a lot of other stuff is not, including his directions to pence, non-executive branch government officials, the public, Jan 6th rioters, etc.
The inability to question motives is the real legal coup. An enthusiastic DOJ wanting to rid a troublesome priest finds a troll post insinuating that Trump is using Mar a Lago to store uranium. Biden treats the post as actionable intel, sends a task force to recover, and a shootout ensues. Fine, no?
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.
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"
How would it not be? He is the commander in chief, and the core oath of office is to protect the constitution against all threats foreign and domestic? There seems to be a very clear easy line from that to the military assassinates a threat to the constitution
of course
but the point we have reached is that the law is only what a handful of corrupt and partisan ideologues say it is, so who's to say what's legal or not
