
Oral arguments suggest the Supreme Court’s about to plunge into a constitutional abyss in Trump-immunity case
NY Post
Writer Ray Bradbury once said, “Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.”
In Thursday’s case before the Supreme Court on the immunity of former President Donald Trump, nine justices appear to be feverishly working with feathers and glue on a plunge into a constitutional abyss.
It has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
The court held ex-President Richard Nixon had such immunity for acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”
Yet in 1974’s United States v. Nixon, the court ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.
Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.

Imagine if Allied intelligence had located Adolf Hitler in late May 1944 and killed him before the Normandy invasion. Imagine that in the same hour, strikes eliminated Hitler’s designated successor, the head of the German Armed Forces High Command, the chief operational planner of the war effort, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, responsible for defending Western Europe, and the rest of Germany’s field marshals and senior commanders.












