Trump's Almost Completely Bonkers Reaction to the Tariff Ruling
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Professor Michael Dorf raises an interesting question: if a President issues a threat of violence against Supreme Court justices, would that be protected by immunity?
Much less amusing than the insults was Trump's statement that, so far as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett are concerned, the ruling is "an embarrassment to their families." Really? Their families? Nobody asked about their families, who are not at all relevant, but in the current environment, that was either a threat of violence or extremely reckless with respect to the risk of violence. In 2022, Congress sensibly (and on a bipartisan basis) passed legislation increasing protection for Justices and their families following the apprehension of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home. But the Justices and their families lack the kind of security detail afforded the president, so their protection is hardly impermeable. If Trump's reference to the Justices' families was meant as a threat, it is a crime, thus raising the macabre question whether denouncing a Supreme Court decision about the scope of a statutory delegation of power to the president counts as a core executive function that entitles him to absolute immunity.
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Professor Michael Dorf raises an interesting question: if a President issues a threat of violence against Supreme Court justices, would that be protected by immunity?
Much less amusing than the insults was Trump's statement that, so far as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett are concerned, the ruling is "an embarrassment to their families." Really? Their families? Nobody asked about their families, who are not at all relevant, but in the current environment, that was either a threat of violence or extremely reckless with respect to the risk of violence. In 2022, Congress sensibly (and on a bipartisan basis) passed legislation increasing protection for Justices and their families following the apprehension of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home. But the Justices and their families lack the kind of security detail afforded the president, so their protection is hardly impermeable. If Trump's reference to the Justices' families was meant as a threat, it is a crime, thus raising the macabre question whether denouncing a Supreme Court decision about the scope of a statutory delegation of power to the president counts as a core executive function that entitles him to absolute immunity.
Trump's Almost Completely Bonkers Reaction to the Tariff Ruling
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.
Professor Michael Dorf raises an interesting question: if a President issues a threat of violence against Supreme Court justices, would that be protected by immunity?
Much less amusing than the insults was Trump's statement that, so far as Justices Gorsuch and Barrett are concerned, the ruling is "an embarrassment to their families." Really? Their families? Nobody asked about their families, who are not at all relevant, but in the current environment, that was either a threat of violence or extremely reckless with respect to the risk of violence. In 2022, Congress sensibly (and on a bipartisan basis) passed legislation increasing protection for Justices and their families following the apprehension of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home. But the Justices and their families lack the kind of security detail afforded the president, so their protection is hardly impermeable. If Trump's reference to the Justices' families was meant as a threat, it is a crime, thus raising the macabre question whether denouncing a Supreme Court decision about the scope of a statutory delegation of power to the president counts as a core executive function that entitles him to absolute immunity.
0 Comments
0 Shares
28 Views
0 Reviews
