It's important to clarify that it's not "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution that the supreme court is facing. It's immunity while acting in his official capacity as president. The D.C. court said there are times when you could be acting in an official capacity and it would still be illegal.
When it comes to the supreme court commenting on insurrection - the supreme court can only rule on the case in front of them. Today the question the court had to answer was about state vs. federal power. It was about the interpretation of the law, not the evidence. Maybe KSL gets into this later when a lawyer comments, but as of around 2 hours 15 minutes, they haven't clarified that point... it's somewhat nuanced, but it's important. The supreme court is not avoiding ruling one way or the other on the insurrectionist stuff, they haven't had a case that actually would allow them to address it.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](/img/n.gif)
It's important to clarify that it's not "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution that the supreme court is facing. It's immunity while acting in his official capacity as president. The D.C. court said there are times when you could be acting in an official capacity and it would still be illegal.
When it comes to the supreme court commenting on insurrection - the supreme court can only rule on the case in front of them. Today the question the court had to answer was about state vs. federal power. It was about the interpretation of the law, not the evidence. Maybe KSL gets into this later when a lawyer comments, but as of around 2 hours 15 minutes, they haven't clarified that point... it's somewhat nuanced, but it's important. The supreme court is not avoiding ruling one way or the other on the insurrectionist stuff, they haven't had a case that actually would allow them to address it.