I wasn't sure I had posted on the SCOTUS immunity arguments today. I'm glad that I did because it saves me having to regurgitate some sour digestion. I will just add for now that I think the decision will be 5-4 with Barrett joining the libs.
Chief Justice Roberts could taken this case on the very simple question of whether former presidents are totally immune from criminal prosecution and massaged the Court to issue a narrow unanimous ruling: No; as he did in the state disqualification cases; on the same concerns: to preserve what is left of the Court's integrity with the public.
Roberts declined that opportunity and we will have a bitterly divided court opinion that will lay bare, agayne, the Court's political split, and which will allow the majority's partisan favorite, Trumpie, to escape accountability until after the election, which at the present time he is projected to win with an Electoral College landslide (he won't win at all); after which, were he to win (which he won't), he could dismiss Jack Smith and his two federal cases.
Instead of answering the narrow question narrowly, confining the arguments to this case and not future cases, and avoiding Constitutional questions not necessary to the ruling (both of which are articles of construction by SCOTUS), Roberts let his brethren and sistren range widely, viz, "We're deciding this case for all future presidents" (by Alito); engaging in hypothetical extensions of the question, even questioning the validity of the Special Counsel Act (Morrison v. Olson). The questioning of Trumpie's lawyer was slow-pitch softball, of the Special Counsel's lawyer from the ghostly ether of possibilities.
It was grieving to listen.
