Now that it is official on the Trump immunity thing there are a couple of takes (not mine but others….given as a info service)….

The Supreme Court’s blockbuster ruling that presidents have immunity for “official” actions continues to resonate, with all kinds of analysis on what it does and doesn’t mean.

• Carte blanche: In the view of Elie Mystal at the Nation, the ruling means that a sitting president can go on a crime spree that includes everything from rape to murder without being held accountable. Court defenders will say that’s not the case, because presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial” acts, he predicts. “But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says ‘unofficial’ acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting ‘unofficially.'” Read his full essay, headlined “The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially.”
• In defense: Fox legal analyst Jonathan Turley defends the decision in the New York Post and accuses liberals and Democrats of “hyperventilation” in their reaction. “The Supreme Court was designed to be unpopular; to take stands that are politically unpopular but constitutionally correct,” he writes. And that’s what happened here: Scholars “have long disagreed where to draw the line on presidential immunity. The court adopted a middle approach that rejected extreme arguments on both sides.” Read his full column.
• ‘Whims of a king’: The court’s ruling essentially says that Trump is “entitled to immunity from prosecution for crimes he has already committed, and for the ones he intends to commit in the future,” writes Adam Serwer at the Atlantic. “The entire purpose of the Constitution was to create a government that was not bound to the whims of a king,” he adds. But the court’s “self-styled ‘originalists’ … have chosen to put a crown within Trump’s reach, in the hopes that he will grasp it in November.” Read the full piece.
• The trend: Whatever one’s view of the decision, it illustrates a clear trend in America, writes Charlie Savage in the New York Times: It”adds to the nearly relentless rise of presidential power since the mid-20th century.” His piece explores this, including the differing views on whether the ruling risks putting the president above the law as expressed by Chief Justice John Roberts (it “does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives”) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (“in every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law”). Read the full analysis.

Assassination?  Now there is one I have not heard of and believe me I have heard all the dire predictions and conspiracies that awaits us if/when Trump wins the election.

This political charged ruling is a bad idea….period!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”