Yes, it should.

👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

@KPNatsFn on the question of presidential immunity:

'Really, in 234 years we've never seen a prosecution of a former president, and that is largely because we have never seen actions by a former president like the ones that we saw by former President Trump...'

Our team has the key takeaways you need to understand what happened during last week's SCOTUS hearings on presidential immunity and what it could mean for the November election.
📹 Ben Raderstorf recaps it for you ⬇️

Really good analysis of the immunity argument from Steve Vladeck.

I agree with him that the big problem is the Court's apparent desire to write an opinion 'for the ages,' when it should just narrowly resolve this case and leave more difficult questions for another day.

Lots of smart people are trying to remind the Chief Justice that he needs to honor his own commitment to judicial restraint.

Recently Dr. Kristy Parker joined EWTN News Nightly to provide analysis of the Supreme Court's oral arguments regarding presidential immunity.
Watch the clip below:

Listen to the real historians.

👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

“I’m profoundly disturbed about the apparent direction of the court,” J. Michael Luttig told ⁦Greg Sargent⁩. “I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried for the crimes he committed in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.” newrepublic.com/article/181059…

❤️

According to Trump, he has legal immunity from prosecution if he orders people assassinated.

So much for pretending to be originalist.

👇🏻👇🏻👇🏻

@judgeluttig: “The conservative justices’ argument for immunity assumes that Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump is politically corrupt and seeks a rule that would prevent future presidents from corruptly prosecuting their predecessors. But such a rule would license all future

Read this from Greg Sargent quoting @judgeluttig. SCOTUS is about to create a “a rule [that] would license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity. Which is exactly what Trump is arguing he’s entitled to do.”

Most of us went to law school believing that law mattered.

“It was a farce befitting the absurdity of the situation.Trump has asked the Supreme Court if he is, in effect, a king.And at least four members of the court, among them the so-called originalists, have said …that they’ll have to think about it.” nytimes.com/2024/04/26/opi…

He really is ghastly, and not much different from the evangelicals who think Trump is somehow God's instrument.

If there were any principles at work, this is what the Court would do.