July 2, 2024
On the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling...
Yesterday, I said I’d wait for the pundits to catch their breath on the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling before I linked to anything. I also waited for them to catch their breath before I read about the ruling. It was a good choice. Even avoiding fevered reactions, I still managed to hear one talking head agree with the decision while admitting he wasn’t familiar with the details. A different talking head claimed the ruling allowed the president to assassinate his rivals, this when the decision hadn’t even been out for 30 minutes.
Despite this, there was some strong analysis. The best item I found was lawyer Dan Abrams reading the Court’s summary of its majority opinion aloud while providing his take on it. It was his first time reading the summary, and so he was parsing his thoughts as he wound through it. He was surprised and confused by some of the reasoning, but he was also thoughtful and measured and he didn’t yell, which I thought was a nice touch.
I tried to find a piece today that mirrored Abrams’ approach. Elie Honig wrote a great column detailing his initial impressions in New York Magazine. Unfortunately, it’s paywalled. So I’ve gone with SCOTUS Blog’s rundown of the decision. It’s more analysis than commentary, and I’m fine with that. The alternative is to post someone screaming from one side or the other and you can find that anywhere.
So, without further ado, here is SCOTUS Blog’s summary of the opinion. I hope you enjoy it.