The practical effect of the ruling raises the possibility of further delay of the case against the former president on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.
Am I tripping? They’re just saying that they think it’s bad that these kinds of big decisions are up for 9 people to decide. Like, “it’s bad that a court of 9 people has this much power”. I don’t see a “both sides” argument here at all, if anything what I see is a language barrier…
A language barrier is a possibility but I read it more than a few times, and it seemed to say pretty specifically all 9 were complicit in the immunity decision because all nine had the chance to argue it.
Which. Is . . not right. I mean, how to explain a dissenting opinion?
Am I tripping? They’re just saying that they think it’s bad that these kinds of big decisions are up for 9 people to decide. Like, “it’s bad that a court of 9 people has this much power”. I don’t see a “both sides” argument here at all, if anything what I see is a language barrier…
A language barrier is a possibility but I read it more than a few times, and it seemed to say pretty specifically all 9 were complicit in the immunity decision because all nine had the chance to argue it.
Which. Is . . not right. I mean, how to explain a dissenting opinion?