Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by stefan_ on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:47PM
(#40851110)
High level of snark given that this is the most definitive part of the ~~actual decision~~ syllabus you could find to possibly counter what Sotomayor wrote. Guess you didn't read it first.
(Advanced trick: you are reading the syllabus. The actual decision is below.)
Re:Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for offic...
by 1123581321 on Monday July 01, 2024 @05:54PM
(#40851182)
I read it this morning. Which part would you have quoted? I picked that part because it seemed like the clearest summary.
The language isn't as electrifying as Sotomayor's example, but you can still imagine unofficial acts that would not warrant immunity.