"Faithless" Supreme Court

[DHBirr]

Ooooh, I'm snickering about this.

So much for the president's — any U.S. president's — "absolute immunity."  Even the Justices he himself nominated turned against the Dotard's monarchical claims.  What?  Have they no obsequious loyalty to America's Chosen God-King?  Heresy and blasphemy!  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

[robkelk]

Woah. They went all the way back to Aaron Burr - who fought in the American Revolution - for their earliest supporting case law.

So much for the Nicknamer-in-Chief's complaints that he's being treated differently than other officeholders in the executive branch. Granted, Burr only made it to Vice-President, but the precedent is still there. His Orangeness is being treated the same way that your "Founding Fathers" were treated.

The law applies to serving politicians. Good to know.

[Star Ranger4]

Umm, the case in question was a supoena for PRESIDENT Jeffersons records, even more damning. In short, as they say, Mr Trump has no more special protections than any other citizen as long as it does not appear the separation of power in each branch is affected. In short, the ginger in cheif needs to prove this is more of a move against that separation than against the egoist he is