I REALLY want to hear Sotomayor clarify what she meant by her Seal Team 6 scenario. Was it just hyperbole for rhetorical effect, or does she really think that scenario is possible and could satisfy the SCOTUS decision granting full Presidential immunity "for official acts".

There are plenty of "legal experts" still saying that the Seal Team 6 scenario is a real possibility, some of whom surely must have given this at least as much thought as our resident legal expert Albaby!

I see a lot of people with excellent legal backgrounds falling into what I consider the Official Act trap, so it does need clarification at the national level. At first blush it does confer complete immunity for Seal Team 6. But that's waay beyond what is reasonable. Also, I'm unhappy withe the inchoate prohibition as it makes it much more difficult for prosecutors to build a case on a rogue President.

I've also been unhappy in finding out just how much our government operates on "norms". Norm is a fine fellow, but I didn't vote for him. :)

AS for the Seal Team 6 - that's referenced at the oral argument stage and not responded to well by the person it was directed to, so the confusion is understandable. I'd like it clarified. Looks like a bad way to write a decision. Where is Scalia when you need him?