Remember during oral argument on the presidential immunity case when conservative justices scoffed at and mocked ...

[moniss]

2. Interesting question and it

lines up with the very serious move they made in Bush v Gore and then claiming it as a one off. There is no such thing as a Supreme Court "one off" and everything they do is precedent for future cases. But by declaiming it the question became whether the decision had judicial authority.

It would be similar to them issuing a ruling claiming the Blue Jays should be stripped of World Series wins because they're Canadian. It would be meaningless from a judicial authority sense but if people and organizations follow it as though it has judicial authority then the lines of restraint mean nothing. Pretty much that is what took place after Bush v Gore and it should have been challenged but Gore chose not to. It remains for argument, never to probably be resolved, whether the SC lunatics would have allowed individual Florida voters to be declared to have standing in any argument to the court about whether the Constitution allows a "one off" claim by the Supreme Court.