No. of Recommendations: 0
CO: Sotomayor wrote "official powers," not "official acts". But sure, you go ahead and disagree with her
Me: Yes, I will question what I want and invite well reasoned, no emotional, responses to correct me. Here is what she wrote.
“The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
She used both. And it isn't clear if she isn't conflating the two, and now claiming that any act will be equated to fall within his powers. I invite all well reasoned factual responses, but not the emotional ones.
