Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Welcome to yet another episode in the American political soap opera that can only be matched by a reality TV show hosted in, I don’t know, an actual circus. In today’s article from Axios, we explore how the Supreme Court is busy untangling the hairball that is whether former President Trump should be granted immunity for, you know, minor activities like allegedly inciting coups or supporting assassinations. Because, why not? Apparently, justice now comes with a “get out of jail free” card if you’ve lived in the White House.
The Breakdown:
- Plot Twist Supreme:
Because normal legal proceedings are too mundane, the Supreme Court has decided to spice things up a bit. The justices are now dabbling in what might be their most riveting reality show yet: “Should Trump get a magic shield against lawsuits for his presidential shenanigans?”
- Specifics: Though typically reserved for knights and superheroes, the immunity debate is now prime time fodder as Trump’s lawyers argue that saying “fight like hell” is not exactly direct instruction for mayhem. Interpret it as “fight like a slightly irritated badger”?
- Specifics: Though typically reserved for knights and superheroes, the immunity debate is now prime time fodder as Trump’s lawyers argue that saying “fight like hell” is not exactly direct instruction for mayhem. Interpret it as “fight like a slightly irritated badger”?
- Assassination Chic:
The Supreme Court, in their latest fashion statement, is probing into whether actions related to “alleged” assassination orders can also be covered under this presidential immunity umbrella. Yes, because when you’re president, even “alleged” assassinations are just part of your daily planner.
- Specifics: “Hey Siri, remind me to sign the bill and order an assassination.” If this sounds plausible, you’re probably ready to accept that presidential to-dos have evolved since Washington’s cherry tree incident.
- Specifics: “Hey Siri, remind me to sign the bill and order an assassination.” If this sounds plausible, you’re probably ready to accept that presidential to-dos have evolved since Washington’s cherry tree incident.
- Coup Couture:
How many justices does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, but apparently, several are needed to determine if a president can incite an insurrection and still be protected by legal immunity. It’s all the rage this season amongst former heads of state.
- Specifics: Picture this: a former prez shouting legally ambiguous phrases into a crowd of fired-up followers. Now, is that incitement or free speech? Or perhaps just a pep rally gone very, very wrong?
- Specifics: Picture this: a former prez shouting legally ambiguous phrases into a crowd of fired-up followers. Now, is that incitement or free speech? Or perhaps just a pep rally gone very, very wrong?
- Legal Limbo:
How low can you go? The Supreme Court is effectively playing limbo, seeing how far down the bar can go when it comes to presidential actions. Invoking a coup counts as just a bad day at work, right?
- Specifics: Depending on how this goes, future presidents might just get a handbook titled “Dictatorship for Dummies – Immunity Included.”
- Specifics: Depending on how this goes, future presidents might just get a handbook titled “Dictatorship for Dummies – Immunity Included.”
- Houdini Act:
Trump’s legal team is basically asking if their client can perform an escape act worthy of Houdini. They argue that presidential speech, regardless of its nature, should be untouchable by legal repercussions.
- Specifics: It’s like arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is fine if you happened to star in the movie being shown.
- Specifics: It’s like arguing that yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is fine if you happened to star in the movie being shown.
The Counter:
- Just a Suggestion:
I mean, “fight like hell” could also just be an encouragement to struggle intensely in a Pilates class, right? - Presidential Passion Project:
Assassinations? Coup? Let’s label them as hobbies. Presidential downtime apparently can get quite extreme. - Word Salad Bar:
It’s all in the wording, folks. “Incitement”? More like an unfortunate choice of words. Maybe he just needed a thesaurus. - Job Description:
C’mon, inciting an insurrection was probably just in the unofficial job description. You know, somewhere after kissing babies and before golfing. - Freedom of Oops:
Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of clumsy phrasing leading to national chaos. Tomato, tomahto.
The Hot Take:
If our beloved justices are going down the rabbit hole of granting whatever immunity circus tickets Trump needs, why not go all in? Here’s an idea: establish a Monarchy! If presidential actions can’t be questioned, let’s not bother with elections, Supreme Court hearings, or laws.
Let’s deck out the White House with a throne room, provide scepters instead of pens, and maybe toss in a few crowns. After all, who needs democracy when you can royally decree your way out of trouble?
Here you have it, front-row seats to the greatest legal performance of the decade. Don’t forget your popcorn.
Source: Supreme Court probes assassinations and coups in Trump immunity hearing
