However, the Court’s GOP majority did not issue a test for “official” v. “Unofficial” acts so that it can remain the ultimate arbiter of what can or cannot be prosecuted
couple of observations from reading the decision:
1. this is really bad.
2. in practice, the status quo has also been bad, and i'm honestly unsure how much of a departure this is from the status quo. i'm still mad about the lack of accountability for Nixon, George W. Bush etc. ...
in practice, presidents have been enjoying a lot of immunity. This codifies it in a way that's quite alarming in the abstract, but even more alarming in the case considered. The decision references Trump's discussions with Pence about trying to interfere with the EC vote counting as "official"
basically making a coup legal as long as you discuss it with your vice president. moreover, this way of argumentation that ignores obvious context and treats all reasoning like we're in a law school seminar is just straight-up gaslighting.
Wouldn't this be official conduct for the VP, but not for the Pres? If I talk to you about your job, that's related to your job, not mine, right?
I mean, I know it's all terrible and made up, but the logic doesn't even hold in this absolutely insane example
If I’m talking to you about your job and I’m your boss, that’s related to my job of managing/directing your work. I don’t imagine it’s controversial to consider the president to be the VP’s boss. This is stupid and terrible for other reasons.
The thing is, though, POTUS is *not* the VP's boss. Historically VPs have mostly deferred to their POTUS, but POTUS can't fire a VP and VP isn't required to follow orders. The worst a thing POTUS could do is threaten to leave VP off the next ticket, and that only works in the first term.
In this case the VP's job, as President of the Senate, is declared by the Constitution, so it's part oh their enumerated powers. The president cannot fire the VP, so he's not the VP's boss.
Bottom line - logic has no place here. Logic assumes that what applies to A should apply to B. That's never been the case in this country - ask Native or African Americans about that. In today's reality, the law is meant for A to use against B, but NOT vice-versa.
