Oral arguments suggest the Supreme Court’s
about to plunge into a constitutional
abyss in Trump immunity case

What SCOTUS really needs to address is lawfare, otherwise nobody is safe from corrupt judges and lawyers.

Until we had criminals as "prosecutors" we never needed to answer such questions.

If we're going to get brave and edgy, how about invalidating everything contrary to the Bill Of Rights?

Suppose instead of speaking at the Eclipse on the day of the electoral college ballots count in the House of Representatives, Trump had spoken at the Eclipse 30 days earlier? What if instead of a speech, he had approved a letter by the Office of White House Counsel? What if instead, it had been a letter to the American people carried in a major news publication? It seems that the chaos on January 6 was triggered by the immediacy of the ballot counting intersecting with a demand to change the procedure at the last minute. The timing and means of communication that created the crisis at the capitol. Was that a crime? If so, what made it so?

Off this topic, but are others sometimes a little annoyed that basic written English is so often ignored in posts, subject and comment.

Shouldn't we be worried about a problem we are actually confronting, i.e. lawfare being used against a president to handicap his performance as president vs. a problem that really hasn't happened to any significance and may never really happen, i.e. a president carrying out criminal acts that he might not be held accountable for? There is an absolute need for the President to be able to act, even when the legal lines are NOT clearly defined. Later on a court may say the President acted illegally and that can be informative for future presidents but the president MUST no be held liable for such actions because it would handicap him when critical action is needed because the law is NOT concise or clear and he would have to be worried about being prosecuted for his actions. You cannot have a functional chief executive under such conditions. I would speculate that every president has taken actions that he could be prosecuted for if he did not have immunity. YET, most of those actions were probably the right thing to do. You cannot have a country run by lawyers (or bureaucrats). THEY are the reason that coffee cups have to be labeled that the contents are "HOT". Is that how our country should be run???

That would be 'Ellipse' to you, #5. :-)

The Dems keep forgetting that anything they can do when they are in power, the other party can do when the tables are turned. You take my king, I take yours.

It will all far apart when the anti-Trumpers realize that the same rules will apply to Joe Biden after he is booted out of the White House and he is still alive (sort of). It will then be found to be too cruel to take the millions of dollars in offshore banks and all of those houses away from Doctor Jill. That's only likely to get worse, #5. Today's public schools and universities have lost all concept of actual education and journalism students are at the bottom of the heap. Thanks to Biden's open border, the percentage of graduates and/or dropouts in the near future who don't speak English as their primary language will rise significantly.

The Roberts Court has been in an Abyss ever since Biden was Inaugurated.

WE're watching.....

The 2020 election WAS stolen. The left and RINOs are still attempting to ignore that in the same way they are ignoring that the vax never prevented covid and never prevented transmission. It is not illegal to question the validity of an election unless you are republican. Hillary went so far as to try to get electors to change their vote. Everyone that went peacefully to the capitol on J6 (except the FBI and their fellow infiltrators) had the right to request that the election be investigated or sent back to the states that were in question. Many of those states violated the constitution by allowing the secretary of states and or governors to change the rules of the election. The state legislatures are the only constitutional ones that should be in control of how the elections are run. I am so sick of the democrats cheating and then RINOs and other dishonest people pretending that the elections are fair.

fta: *Likewise, the special counsel that argued the protection for presidents must rest with the good motivations and judgment of prosecutors. It was effectively a “Trust us, we’re the government” assurance. Justice Samuel Alito and others questioned whether such reliance is well placed after decades of prosecutors’ proven abuses.* who here would trust Jerk smith as far as they could throw Raticia ...?