This Is Also Why The Court Should Not Be Ruling On Hypotheticals

I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as "an official act."

I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense. pic.twitter.com/4J0uLs62G1

— Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) April 25, 2024

KBJ is exactly right that the scope of the criminal statutes (and whether they need a clear statement to apply to a President) isn’t properly part of the immunity appeal—but it’s hard to believe that a majority will agree.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 25, 2024

Justice Alito suggests that, if former presidents are subject to prosecution after leaving office, they'll be more likely to seek to unlawfully remain in office after they were defeated for re-election/their term has ended.

JFC.

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) April 25, 2024

Alito is still the best living argument for term limits for Justices.

I’m not sure yet how disconcerted I am about it, but I otherwise agree with His Honor: This argument was basically an abstract law school seminar about the next ten presidential criminal immunity cases that the Court conceivably might—but probably never will—have to decide. https://t.co/zj5F5RJ1om

— George Conway (@gtconway3d) April 25, 2024

Not what oral arguments should be about, IOW.