Trump has a decent chance of getting absolute immunity

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

No, because:

1. Judges are bad at activism. Judges trying to guide society to a "better path" will often (most of the time? Always?) lead to a worse path. Many examples of this and ways it can manifest. There are many reasons for this -- lack of knowledge, the imperfections inherent to government decisionmaking, loss of faith in judicial system, etc.

2. Judicial activism is inherently bad because the constitution is moral will of people and unelected judges have no right to revise constitution even if good to do so.

Dude, if the SC rules that presidents have absolute immunity, the only thing stopping them from assassinating their dissidents in Congress and replacing them with sycophants or cowards who will vote however the president wants in order to save their lives is the president’s own moral code and whether or not enough of the military will go along with it. A president with full immunity could force Congress and state governments to pass an amendment which declares him dictator for life. Do you really not see how dangerous full presidential immunity would be. It is insane to say that judicial activism would not be warranted here