@dcdeejay where do you see a statute authorizing the president to kill all of the justices?

Without such legal authority, SCOTUS says it wouldn't be official.

@volkris Nothing in their most recent ruling confirms that. They deliberately left it open to the court's interpretation of an official act at the time, where the absolutely should have been definitive. This did not escape the dissenting Justices.

@dcdeejay but that's ALWAYS the case anyway. The courts can ALWAYS make such a determination regardless of this ruling.

Judges are free to throw out cases. If we assume judges are so corrupt then this is all moot anyway.

All this says is that if the president is found to be acting legally, then he can't be prosecuted for it.

It's largely a procedural question, and it always was.

@volkris This points you've made are entirely reasonable and I would likely agree without qualification outside of the context of this specific case, with this specific court.

And I make know assumptions about judges generally. But the Justices on this court have shown everyone paying attention exactly who they are, what they stand for, and what they're capable of - there is no reason to give the majority in this case the benefit of the doubt.

@dcdeejay and it needs to be clear that even in this specific case the Supreme Court pointed out that allegations in the indictment are outside of the scope of official business and therefore subject to prosecution.

I'd say that unfortunately, too many people are paying attention, but to folks who aren't giving them accurate information.

This opinion paved the way for Trump to be prosecuted for some of the allegations in this case. We could have skipped all of this had Biden's administration not overreached and had instead stuck to those allegations.