When you figure out what DEI is, come back and see me.

It's almost unfair to expect Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson to be brilliant 100% of the time. It's a lot to ask of anyone. But thank goodness she is.

While Trump's lawyers play hide the ball from the prosecution, the SCOTUS republicans are playing hide the pickle with America to screw us out of our democracy. It's damn tiresome and enraging.

Small men do terrible things for petty, craven purposes. Trump and the republicans are intent on making that absolutely clear.

All of today's questions and discussions about 'official acts' were phony. Official acts was the straw man argument that the republican justices wanted to have to avoid discussing criminal acts and facts because what Trump did was real and illegal, not hypothetical.

It's safe to assume that Alito has dementia.

It's unreasonable to assume that the intent of the constitution is to insulate and immunize criminal presidents from punishment making them kings. Otherwise, none of the other democracies on earth would have followed the US and created their own constitutions and democracies.

Trump called for 'all hell to break loose,' but no hell appeared. Apparently, not even hell wants anything to do with Trump any sooner than absolutely necessary.

Since time immorial, the threat of punishment for crime has been intended to have a 'chilling effect' on committing crime whether or not it actually worked. So it's precious that republicans are worried about lack of immunity having a chilling effect on a criminal president.

An 'official' act doesn't make it a legal act simply because it was performed by the official any more than an official order is a legal order if it's against the law.

Every conservative on SCOTUS understands that distinction. They're trying hard to ignore it though.

The real problem seems to be that the republicans tried to be cute and play word games. They want to conflate 'official acts' with legal, legitimate duties responsibilities, and processes, and they framed the that way. But official acts was never the question. Legal acts is.

Everyone in the world accepts that except for republicans, Trump, and Putin.

Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson pointed out that granting immunity to presidents permitting them to turn the Oval Office into the world's crime center is probably worse result than denying immunity and chilling presidents thus preventing them from criming. She's totally spot on.

It's really perverse how republicans - including those of SCOTUS - are pretending to use 'process' in their desperate efforts to destroy process.

The constitution specifically prohibits bills of attainder that punish specific people. But today we're witnessing activist republican SCOTUS justices legislate from the bench writing new immunity laws specifically to protect Trump. It's sort of the opposite bill of a attainder.

At some point in the future, a group of psychologists and psychiatrists should probably do a deep archeological dig to determine why so many lawyers were and are so willing to enable and assist Trump in destroying democracy and society to the point of themselves breaking the law.

SCOTUS is doing it's best to pull off a judicial rope-a-dope. They're trying so hard to focus on process, rules and prodedures of hypothetical 'official action' - which was never the question - that they're deliberately steering the conversation away from actual facts and law.

No partial or qualified immunity should be granted either. Either the law was broken or it wasn't.