Eric Segall Lee Kovarsky The Supreme Court could have moved quickly and focused 'narrowly' on the facts of this case to make clear Trump has no immunity (in fact should have taken it up before the appeals level at Jack Smith's request). We don't need to know every basis for not prosecuting Presidents now

Yes the Court is winging it on immunity (disclaimer I’m quoted in the piece). politi.co/44fv3xD via POLITICO

Eric Segall I feel like I’m losing my mind. Don’t I have clear memories of them being vehemently anti USSR?

I just checked their website and ZERO mentions of Russia are found, only China.
It is as if Russia is an ally in their world.

At this point, Heritage is essentially a Soviet tool to spread chaos in America so a right wing totalitarian can take over and impose white supremacy and mandatory Christianity. That’s Heritage.

Eric Segall Good point. They will have no power unless they hold exactly as Trump tells them.

Republicans still think they can control him. They learned nothing since 2016.

They need to think of Trump as Frankenstein's monster. No one has power over him.

Eric Segall Scalia really wrote the blueprint for disingenuous debate. Citing some obscure precedent from the 1840s to bolster his confusing weak or outright bullshit conclusions. He was smart enough to make it appear judicial. But it was obvious to an alert observer he was a robed activist

We con law profs need to consider that what was being discussed Thursday in SCOTUS was not so much executive immunity as it was executive impunity.

I don’t think people have really imbibed the FACT that Judge Pryor and Justice Thomas both hired Charlie Kirk’s top lieutenant as a law clerk. Forget her racist texts. That’s like those Fed Soc judges hiring David Duke’s lieutenant. That ok? And the clerk was too awful for Kirk.

Eric Segall The Judges Made Good Nazis nytimes.com/1991/04/28/boo…

The Supreme Court’s next scheduled oral argument is in October. Really. That’s 5 months away. Almost half a year. No wonder they had to slow walk immunity.

Scalia’s dissent in Morrison is not close to being worthy of the acclaim from most folks. As policy, he raised great points but as constitutional analysis, it is garbage. He voted to strike down an act of Congress while having no persuasive basis in text, history, or tradition.

After much reflection, I can only conclude our Supreme Court/Non-Court, is completely untroubled by Trump, by 1/6, and the potential loss of the rule of law. They think it will be business as usual if Trump wins again. They will be the first to lose power and I won’t shed a tear.

How on earth did she get the impression she’s entitled to be vastly less accountable than the rest of us?

SCOTUS, any thoughts about that?

Lucy heard about the Governor and the pup.

How people treat staff and animals is often a direct pipeline to their character.

Just saying.

I might give a toe for the Celtics to lose tonight.

I will never get over the puppy thing.

emptywheel Well, Brett Kavanaugh probably meant *Republican* presidents are only subject to laws that say *Republican* presidents are subject to them.

If Brett Kavanaugh believes Presidents are only subject to laws that say Presidents are subject to them, why was he investigating Bill Clinton for lying?

This week with Pam Karlan and Mark Joseph Stern podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ami…