It's a more nuanced ruling than what you are suggesting. They definitely made distinctions about absolute v. presumptive immunity and separating "official acts" from "unofficial acts." It is those questions that have to be evaluated by the lower courts. SCOTUS definitely seemed peeved to have had to review this case at all saying the lower courts didn't do their job correctly. Take that for what it's worth.
besides, when has this administration (that keeps claiming that another term for Trump will spell then end of democracy here) do what the law requires, or even what the Supreme Court decides?
Sorry all, I thought William's comment was referring to the immunity ruling but Willing might be right and that he is talking about the Missouri v. Murthy/Biden ruling.
they didn't rule against it - just punted till later
It's a more nuanced ruling than what you are suggesting. They definitely made distinctions about absolute v. presumptive immunity and separating "official acts" from "unofficial acts." It is those questions that have to be evaluated by the lower courts. SCOTUS definitely seemed peeved to have had to review this case at all saying the lower courts didn't do their job correctly. Take that for what it's worth.
right the actual decision was much better than I expected
besides, when has this administration (that keeps claiming that another term for Trump will spell then end of democracy here) do what the law requires, or even what the Supreme Court decides?
Sorry all, I thought William's comment was referring to the immunity ruling but Willing might be right and that he is talking about the Missouri v. Murthy/Biden ruling.
I think you’re talking about the Free Speech ruling?
N*gga, PLEASE!
Lol.