there was a concerning ruling in the united states about presidential immunity. the american bourgeois fake left is arguing it proves that the supreme court is a threat to democracy. rather, i think it's a demonstration of why you shouldn't politicize trivial issues and blow them out of proportion to score political points, and a reason for the democrats to take a good hard look at themselves for blowing the capitol hill fiasco out of proportion, and trying to politicize a non-issue and turn it into a specious, polarizing ballot question.

a couple of justices are arguing that the president of the united states is now above the law, and they might be correct, purely logically. if justices were doing math when they worked out their rulings, they'd have no choice but to deduce the clear outcome that the president is now indeed above the law. at some level, we expect our justices to behave in this way, as well. however, anybody who has looked at the issue in any depth at all knows that our court system is not this euclidean, archimedean system of kantian purity, but that, rather, it is the case that justices constantly contradict themselves, frequently in their own rulings. the legal philosophy in opposition to the idea that justices are perfect arbiters of truth and logic is called legal realism and is the same school of thought that produced critical legal studies, from which we got critical race theory. i would argue that, while any pure philosophy requires a dialectic to approximate reality, and that you will be led astray by uncritically following any philosophy, legal realism and critical legal studies are the approach to analysis that best approximates reality.

does the president have the right to assassinate an opponent, then? well, let's see what happens if one tries. i wouldn't expect the court to uphold that idea.

that doesn't mean i like the ruling, although i broadly agree with it.

 

for the issue at hand, what is trump charged with, exactly? i can't figure out what law he was supposed to have broken, or why this was sent to the supreme court at all. i have said almost nothing about this, because i'm not remotely interested in it, because i don't see a legitimate news story underlying it, but rather see a democratic party desperate to tar it's opponents any way it can and that's willing to sensationalize a story using warped narratives, flawed logic and poor media analysis in order to confuse voters. the only story here is that the democrats tried to blow the situation out of proportion to confuse voters for their own self-interest, and that it spectacularly backfired.

the supreme court should have simply argued that trump didn't actually break any laws, but it instead took advantage of the attempt to generate a politicized ruling by counter-politicizing the situation instead, after the democrats gave it to them as a gift. i can criticize them for that, as it is not archimedean and i wish they were. i don't blame them for it, and it's not a surprising outcome.

(i'm reminded of the part of the debate where biden attempted to criticize trump for firing his general, which was christmas in july for donald trump, who got to remind everybody how much he loves firing people)

the democrats need to actually understand that they no longer control the courts, and they need to take the case as a wake-up call. the democrats have previously been able to rely on the courts to take their side in politicized rulings, of which roe v. wade was actually an example of. that expectation is no longer realistic. if you drop a bullshit case on the lap of this court, it's going to make you pay for it.

biden can always try to test the theory by ordering trump assassinated and see what happens. it's not like he's going to live long enough to go to trial.