IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
with the Right high-fiving, fist-pumping, acting like they scored a major victory and the Left calling it the end of rule of law, claiming it makes the POTUS a king and losing their bleeping minds, someone has to be the voice of sanity. The fact of the matter is, relative to legality of official vs. unofficial acts, **nothing has actually changed,** the SCOTUS only enunciated the current set-up. Yeah, I know- I made noises about the presidency having new operational latitude, Biden having a clear path to have Trump arrested; ngl, that was specifically to mess the Trump-cultist's heads. I own that. Fact is, that path has been there the whole time but it didn't open up for travel until the Orange Jackblabbit promised to violate the Constitution if he's re-elected sooo... Anyway, the reality is the POTUS has always operated in a bubble of immunity for acts undertaken in accordance with the duties of the office; that's why we don't impeach sitting presidents, charge ex-presidents for unintended, collateral deaths incurred in air strikes, resulting from policy decisions based on best available data, etc. To wit:; "Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."; -SCOTUS, Trump v. United States, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Now, if we're talking about the GOP justices making a Constitution- & oath-violative majority ruling retro-actively redefining evidentiary rules in a way which effectively interferes with current criminal prosecutions, Congress' & law enforcement's respective authorities to investigate a sitting or former POTUS reasonably, articulably suspected of committing a crime, that's a different ball game. That portion of the ruling should be singled out, challenged on grounds that it establishes judicial inequality, non-parity by erecting a wall between investigators and the POTUS. Therefore, when the president commits a crime, it's still illegal -which is why the Office of Legal Counsel is on 24hr call to advise the sitting POTUS concerning issues of legality, the bounds of presidential authority. All this talk about a sitting president now having the power to order assassination of political rivals (suborning murder), parcel out pardons in exchange for gains (quid pro quo), etc. sans accountability is just that.
