@marklemley.bsky.social Is the Trump immunity ruling the exception that proves the rule, or does it fit in to your remarkable thesis is a way that eludes this layman?
I know it's crazy, but so was that ruling. Do we need to start engaging with the idea that this court is complicit in providing legitimacy to an autocratic regime? Specifically a Trump one? Or do they think the prospect is ridiculous? Or is it a vindication of Nixon and Jamelle suggests?
It's an interesting question and I have been puzzling over it. It definitely gives power to presidents, which seems at odds with my thesis. But the Court keeps for itself the power to decide what is immune. And it clearly plans to use that power to protect acts it likes and not those it doesn't
