Personally I would expect 2 or 3. Most likely 3, so they can appeal to sensibilities and say they plugged up the executive power loophole until an act of Congress modifies the constitution thusly.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
So hard to say if they will
Rule that only trump has absolute immunity
Rule that all presidents have absolute immunity
Rule that trump had absolute immunity, but no other president has it starting…now!
Personally I would expect 2 or 3. Most likely 3, so they can appeal to sensibilities and say they plugged up the executive power loophole until an act of Congress modifies the constitution thusly.
“This decision does not set a precedent.”