|
Hayes Brown@hayesbrown.bsky.social |
new from me: John Roberts shot down Trump's absurd "double jeopardy" argument in his immunity case, finding it ridiculous to assume that an impeachment trial acquittal triggered criminal immunity. Because we can't have nice things, he then replaced it with an even more airtight protection for Trump
6 replies 16 reposts 55 likes
|
|
Panic! at Nabisco
@sthomas451.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I don't think they thought this one through.
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Mike Krumrei
@mikekrumrei.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I would like to remind Roberts and the other five justices doing their level best to destroy liberal democracy it's a hell of a gamble to assume you'll always be on the side of an autocrat. How arrogant does one have to be to believe that they'll never be on the business end of an "official Act?"
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
RonK, Seattle
@cogenteur.bsky.social
[ View ] |
When the Framers warned that a corrupt President might commit bribery (or even Bribery!), what did they mean? Per Roberts, POTUS can sell official indulgences (even under explicit written contracts as SCOTUS now demands), and it's not Bribery. Puzzling -- but I think I have figured it out. ...
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Norbizness
@norbizness.bsky.social
[ View ] |
He's an institutionalist (if that institution is Arkham Asylum)
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
MindCrime
@mindcrime.bsky.social
[ View ] |
because a rabidly partisan congress didn't impeach trump he can't be tried by an actual court?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
BenjamÃn Schultz-Figueroa
@benspky.bsky.social
[ View ] |
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes