Re Trump Immunity Case - Am I the only one that that thinks the majority doesn't adequately explain why
the dissent's "fear mongering" scenarios would not or could not occur under their view of presidential immunity?
In other words, it seem to me like they don't full-throatedly rebut that a president could indeed abuse their lawful and constitutional power toward seemingly unlawful purposes. They don't seem to really engage with idea of extreme abuses of "official acts", and if those abuses are entitled to immunity.
They call the dissent "fear mongering" and its scenarios "extreme", unless I misread or missed it, the majority doesn't say that those extremes can't happen under the majority's decision.
Is that an incorrect read?
Do you think this is more of a "wait and see" kind of thing where can could later flesh out for facts (assuming there is a 'later' when Trump loses)?
= new reply since forum marked as read
