So, SCOTUS has been on a roll lately. A bad roll. Shooting down Chevron, which limits the regulatory state, and now giving Trump some immunity to crimes. A lot on the left are freaking out, thinking that this gives him total immunity to do whatever and not be tried for anything. I do admit the ruling is concerning, but it is admittedly (and thankfully) a bit more narrow than it's hyped up to be.
As it turns out, Trump can only be immune from prosecution for carrying out official acts related to his explicitly stated constitutional duties. He can't just commit crimes. However, the question is, what constitutes an official act? If he jails his political opponents or assassinates them, is that an official act? He is commander in chief after all. And that's the real problem here. The concept is poorly defined, kicks the decision to the lower courts, and is probably gonna end up leading to SCOTUS ruling on this themselves for further clarification in the future. They kicked the can down the road.
Honestly, the whole idea sounds as lazy as some of my more half baked blog posts. Sometimes I come up with an idea, I'm hazy on how to implement it, and then I come back later and either expand on it or shoot it down. That's fine if youre a no named blogger just coming up with stuff on the fly, but for a SCOTUS decision, I'd expect more clarification here. All in all, it's still a bad decision, but I suspect it's less bad than the left is melting down about it as I get more input on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment