To do that though the Supreme Court would be stating that it’s ok for a President to lead an insurrection to stay in power, that basically the President is above the law. Very much in line with the immunity claim Trump has before them now. I don’t see how they could state the law is both against a President having absolute immunity, and also that insurrection is fine for a President. He is either above the law (and the Supreme Court) or he isn’t. And I don’t see the Supreme Court wanting to defer power to anyone else, especially a dictator that will do away with the court as to prevent any oversight.
To do that though the Supreme Court would be stating that it’s ok for a President to lead an insurrection to stay in power, that basically the President is above the law. Very much in line with the immunity claim Trump has before them now. I don’t see how they could state the law is both against a President having absolute immunity, and also that insurrection is fine for a President. He is either above the law (and the Supreme Court) or he isn’t. And I don’t see the Supreme Court wanting to defer power to anyone else, especially a dictator that will do away with the court as to prevent any oversight.