6th July 2024, 10:12 PM
I'm not sorry to base my opinions on the actual law. Not one bit.
Anyway, Sotomayor's dissent is entirely correct, it is every bit as terrifying a decision as she said. It's the most anti-American law or regulation maybe in our nation's entire history, since it more than perhaps any other directly goes against the most important core reason for our nation's founding, rule of law and not rule of a king. It's incredibly dangerous for the future of us having a democracy, there is no question about that.
And given how they are willing to throw out 248 years of precedent, it would not surprise me if in the future the Supreme Court invents some new illegal reason to get Trump off for his New York felony conviction. But again, this decision does NOT DO THAT. The charges date to before he was President and did not involve any official acts. The only case they have right now to overturn the conviction is to say that some of the evidence should have been disallowed because of it dating to after he was President. That is the only element of this that his legal team mentioned during the trial. They did not try to say that he was immune from prosecution here during the trial, probably because it mostly predated his Presidency and was clearly personal and not official.
Quote: You don't understand, ANYTHING can be registered as "part of an official act" now. The bar is exceedingly high to pass to prove that something he does isn't an "official act".No, not anything. Acts done before he became President are not an official act, obviously. And in the New York case, the acts were done before he became President.
Anyway, Sotomayor's dissent is entirely correct, it is every bit as terrifying a decision as she said. It's the most anti-American law or regulation maybe in our nation's entire history, since it more than perhaps any other directly goes against the most important core reason for our nation's founding, rule of law and not rule of a king. It's incredibly dangerous for the future of us having a democracy, there is no question about that.
And given how they are willing to throw out 248 years of precedent, it would not surprise me if in the future the Supreme Court invents some new illegal reason to get Trump off for his New York felony conviction. But again, this decision does NOT DO THAT. The charges date to before he was President and did not involve any official acts. The only case they have right now to overturn the conviction is to say that some of the evidence should have been disallowed because of it dating to after he was President. That is the only element of this that his legal team mentioned during the trial. They did not try to say that he was immune from prosecution here during the trial, probably because it mostly predated his Presidency and was clearly personal and not official.
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}