SCOTUS Asked Some Dumb Questions

Somebody correct me, but aren’t lawyers and justices supposed to have brains?

As everyone is well aware, SCOTUS had the hearing today on presidential immunity. I listened in on this as it was happening. I have to admit. I truly thought that the Supreme Court was going to laugh Trump’s lawyer out of the building. But, instead, they started with a lot of ‘hypothetical’ situations that truly made no sense to me. Actually, the more I listened, the more I was leaning toward the fact they were doing their get to come up with some reason to grant immunity to presidents for crimes committed!

I’m thinking to myself…..”what the hell are these people doing?” Some of these ‘hypothetical’ scenarios they were saying heating were really from left field. One of the just fed discussed a SEAL Team 6 scenario. He’s saying that these brace officers are bound by the Military Code. I’m thinking “duh, do you think?” Of course they’re bound by the Code, but, IF their Commander and Chief gives them an order, it’s carried out. If it isn’t, then they face possible Court Martial. So, if the President tells them to start killing people, what do you think they are going to do? I venture to guess they’ll follow orders, especially if the likes of Trump tells them the people they’ll be killing are enemies of the nation. And I wouldn’t put that past that narcissistic psychopath one bit!

As I said, I listened to the arguments and the hypotheticals all of the justices could come your way with. Trump’s attorney seemed partially prepared, but he was lost on some of the justices questioning on their particular hypothetical scenarios.

The attorney for the AttoAttorney General seemed more prepared , but he too seemed a bit perplexed on some of the scenarios he was given.

In believe the Supreme Court justices are trying their best to figure out a way to give a sitting president ‘partial immunity’ for crimes committed ‘in performance of their duties’. Now, to me, that’s giving a narcissistic sociopath blanket immunity. He’ll declare that what he did was in performance of his duties, and get immunity. In other words, he can commit murder and get away with it.

This is a case the Supreme Court shouldn’t have entertained. They should have rejected it altogether. Sent it back to the lower court because the lower court had akready ruled that a president dues not get blanket immunity from prosecution for crimes committed. Which U.S. the way it is supposed to be.

No one is above the law. Not even  sitting president!