Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Admiral Yi]

The 1st and 2nd Amendment seem absolutely clear to me as well, but the courts have found ways to qualify them, usually in ways the public agrees with.

[grumbler]

If they open a loophole for Musk, Schwarzenegger must step into it.

I would love it if Schwarzenegger took over from Musk.  He could toss him out by the seat of his pants and say "now GET YA ASS TO MAHS!"

Get to da Stahship!

[grumbler]

Have I said this before, or merely thought it?

The 6 conservative justices are definitely very ideological.  But they're not "in the bag" for Trump either.  They were Federalist Society hard-cores.

As such they will (and have) gone along with some very, lets call it controversial, decisions.  But just because those were in line with long-standing Federalist Society principles.

Don't put too much faith in the USSC (for example I'm not sure what they'd do with the birthright citizenship idea) but I don't think they'll just flatly ignore the language of the constitution either just because Trump says so.

The flatly ignore the language of the Constitution that say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

I don't believe that presidential immunity for criminal acts was a longstanding Federalist Society principal.  The justices had to dig deep into their own asses to justify that one.

[grumbler]

The only thing I see in the Constitution about president's committing crimes is the articles of impeachment.

And the result was that presidents (and judges, for that matter) were not charged with criminal behavior until they had been impeached or no longer held office.  Nothing in the Constitution says anything about the President being immune to prosecution for criminal acts.  The justices had to infer that sweeping judgement from a sentence fragment in a single issue of the Federalist Papers.

[The Minsky Moment]

No that is what was so shocking about that ruling.  The Fed Society favors the unitary executive, but that is a doctrine that respects, the separation of powers and is based in an orginalist conception of constitutional authority.  The notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution is fundamentally contrary to an originalist "tradition and history" approach, because the concept flagrantly contradicts original understanding, the very purpose of the American Revolution and constitutional system, the literal text, and two and half centuries of historical practice.

The only thing I see in the Constitution about president's committing crimes is the articles of impeachment.

The impeachment judgment clause specifically says that a conviction does not bar a subsequent prosecution. That provisions makes no sense if the President is immune from prosecution.