An interesting discussion which highlights the intricacies of legal thinking lost to the untrained public mind. A question:
Isn’t giving the POTUS the right to pardon himself the same as legally sanctioned placing of him/herself above the law? I don’t see how the framers could overlook potential immoral conduct as an obstacle to giving the POTUS a personal get out of jail free card.
You're right about the self pardon - it seems inconsistent with the very structure of our government and the idea that no one is above the law. But so does the immunity that this Court just "discovered."
Thanks for trying to make sense of a gobbledygook footnote and turning it into something intelligible. One would think, and rightfully expect, the high court to write with clarity so that at a minimum even trained lawyers would understand what the court is trying to communicate.
An interesting discussion which highlights the intricacies of legal thinking lost to the untrained public mind. A question:
Isn’t giving the POTUS the right to pardon himself the same as legally sanctioned placing of him/herself above the law? I don’t see how the framers could overlook potential immoral conduct as an obstacle to giving the POTUS a personal get out of jail free card.
You're right about the self pardon - it seems inconsistent with the very structure of our government and the idea that no one is above the law. But so does the immunity that this Court just "discovered."
So what does the Court's seeming to side with Trump do for advocating stronger SCOTUS ethical standards?
Thanks for trying to make sense of a gobbledygook footnote and turning it into something intelligible. One would think, and rightfully expect, the high court to write with clarity so that at a minimum even trained lawyers would understand what the court is trying to communicate.