Mary obviously lacks any concept of how this constitutional republic works and why it has lasted this long.
While most comments seem to think this makes the President above the law, the truth is nothing of the kind. It does help to clarify how to separate Official Acts from Private Acts.
So, the immunity decision protects others more than it helps Trump.
For example, when Trump takes office next January, he can't prosecute Obama for ordering assassinations, etc.
@softbear -- Ok... Try to dismiss the quotes from the dissenting Supreme Court justices.
I'll wait.
Ah, I get it. Ignore the classical conservatives, but not the progressives.
I notice you don't mention the concurrence of Justice Jackson on the core finding, yet you don't castigate them. You include Barrett in the photo, but she dissented in part.
The concurring opinion of Justice Thomas is the one that shows the current administration is pursuing an illegal prosecution. You can expect this point to be revisited in the near future if the current activities persist.
"quotes from the dissenting"
I will get back to you on that if I find any substance there.
@softbear -- So you don't see this Immunity for the President paired with #Project2025 as an extremely dangerous combination?
You sure do seem to be minimizing the dangers when it seems pretty clear that virtually everyone that actually knows something on the subject is raising concerns.
I'd be curious to find out which pundits you're listening to. You have to be forming your opinion from somewhere and who you are going to cite here will be very revealing.
Reply with links.
Pundits are useless.
Listen to a lawyer who doesn't make their money by their appearances on the Main Stream Media. They are paid to say whatever the producer wants to hear. (Or else they're not invited back.)
Better yet ignore what you've heard, and read the opinion for yourself. It isn't THAT hard to get the basic concepts. If you don't get it: ASK.
"Lawtube" has a wide range of opinions on most subjects. It is interesting to contrast defense attorney and prosecutor opinions.
The Opinion gives a great deal of history and rational that you will not here from anyone with TDS. So start here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Look at the information the pundits ignore. Especially that.
In general, #Project2025 is no different than many transition advisory teams that were common over the past century. What is very different is that it is basically being done in public ON THE INTERNET. The first Trump Campaign failed miserably with regard to transition planning.
SCOTUS overtuning of Chevron is much more important to their proposals than the clarification of Executive Privilege.
I'm not holding out on you, I just happened across this:
https://bird.makeup/users/vdhanson/statuses/1808634918723014685
(Yes, you might consider historian Victor Davis Hansen a pundit. I don't.)
@softbear --
You're a sad joke if you think #Project2025 isn't a threat when they want to replace career government professionals with politically appointed loyalists that they vet and train specifically for.
#Jan6 and Trump's generally bumbling first administration was stunted because of these professionals doing their duty in their positions.
This shapes the next January 6th where those same people open the doors for the insurrectionists.