So — let’s take John at his (and Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Barrett and Roberts) at their respective word. [Or… words?]
Though we all know Mr. Biden is too much the moral statesman to do so, it could well be a core duty of the sitting President “to take care” that the nation’s laws are faithfully executed. [ Hmmm. Where have we heard that, before?]
With this vast expansion of executive power granted today, Mr. Biden could — without any push-back from the Supremes — decide by executive order that no new election may be held until a jury of his peers resolved Tangerine’s “national security” felony grand jury indictments.
Those would be the document thefts in Florida and the J6 felonies. Mr. Biden might reasonably say “either choose a different nominee, GOP — or wait until we hear from the jury on his indicted felonies — against the nation’s security.”
And Hinderaker would now be bound to agree — that is a sensible reading of the Roberts opinion; a lawful use of the unitary executive’s Art. II prerogatives. And a “core function” of the Executive.
So let’s get it on!
The GOP may nominate and run Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin, or another — or, under Biden’s executive order… they can wait until about 2026, for the jury verdicts, and next time Tangerine may be placed into nomination by GOP / MAGA.
Geese and gander old man. Geese and gander.
Cheers!
Powerline Lies... 
Let’s take a moment to consider Paul’s take on the SCOTUS decision. I’ve been reading Paul for 20 years now, and here he utilizes a familiar dodge he’s fallen back on many times before:
Well, of course they are. Whenever some conservatives do something nakedly corrupt, hyper-partisan, or stupid, Paul shrugs his shoulders, and waves his hands, and declares it “beyond the scope” of what he’s writing about. He did it when Fox News reporter Ed Henry was accused of sexual misconduct allegations. He did it when Judge Kacsmaryk issued his moronic mifepristone opinion (reversed 9-zip by SCOTUS). He did it when considering the validity of the dipshit “deep state” narrative. And he does it again here.
In this post, he does serve up a mealy-mouthed “My sense is that the Court got it right,” by he offers no historical prescedent to back up this flimsy assertion, presumably because there isn’t one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I of course agree 100%.
Churlish malign actor.
Ugh.
LikeLiked by 1 person