Main Justice Cycles of Factionalism
10 snips
Nov 5, 2025 The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has sparked controversy, leading to what some call revenge prosecutions, including cases against Comey and Letitia James. The co-hosts delve into the complexities of selective prosecution claims and recent developments in these high-profile cases. Discussions also cover National Guard deployments, SNAP benefit litigation amid a government shutdown, and a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court tariff argument. The episode highlights the ongoing legal battles and the challenges of navigating executive power.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Immunity Decision Enables Revenge Prosecutions
- The Supreme Court's 2024 presidential-immunity decision created an asymmetry that emboldens weaponized prosecutions by insulating presidents from accountability.
- Mary McCord and Andrew Weissman argue this paved the way for revenge prosecutions like Comey and Letitia James cases.
Prosecution Doctrine Versus Presidential Immunity
- Vindictive and selective-prosecution doctrines now collide with the Court's immunity reasoning, producing legal tension in Comey's defense.
- Comey's team argues courts still can police prosecutions even if the president enjoys immunity from prosecution.
DOJ Leans On Immunity To Defend Prosecutions
- The government's response to Comey's vindictive-prosecution claim leaned on the immunity decision to argue courts should avoid second-guessing prosecutorial decisions.
- DOJ framed such claims as impinging on core executive constitutional functions.