"The Constitution subjects the armed forces of the United States to civilian control and the rule of law. These limits on the military are bedrock features of our democracy and are deeply rooted in our nation’s history. From the Founding to the present day, a stead- fast commitment to these principles has successfully guided us through two world wars and numerous other conflicts; provided the stability needed for our democratic republic to flourish; and ensured that the military has the capacity to defend our nation by being trained and ready to fight and win its wars.
"Petitioner’s theory of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is an assault on these foundational commitments. The notion of such immunity, both as a general matter, and also specifically in the context of the potential negation of election results, threatens to jeopardize our nation’s security and international leadership. Particularly in times like the present, when anti-democratic, authoritarian regimes are on the rise worldwide, such a threat is intolerable and dangerous..." -- excerpt from an amicus brief (pdf) filed at the Supreme Court yesterday by 19 retired four star admirals and generals, and former Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, arguing against the Malignant Loser's ludicrous claim of presidential immunity. The latest amicus brief is one of several by high ranking former government officials, former governors of both parties, and legal scholars and jurists that have been filed with the Court arguing that the Malignant Loser's claims were dangerous and without merit and should be rejected promptly in order for him to have his days in court, before the election. Having courts, including this one, stacked with Republican politicians- in- robes doesn't bode well for that outcome, we must admit.
