From: drlmccoymd@gmail.com   
      
   The Court intimates that its decision is grounded in the Constitution. If that   
   is the case, Congress cannot provide a remedy against Presidential misconduct,   
   and the criminal laws of the United States are wholly inapplicable to the   
   President. I find this    
   approach completely unacceptable. I do not agree that, if the Office of   
   President is to operate effectively, the holder of that Office must be   
   permitted, without fear of liability and regardless of the function he is   
   performing, deliberately to inflict    
   injury on others by conduct that he knows violates the law.   
      
   The Court nevertheless refuses to follow this course with respect to the   
   President. It makes no effort to distinguish categories of Presidential   
   conduct that should be absolutely immune from other categories of conduct that   
   should not qualify for that    
   level of immunity. The Court instead concludes that, whatever the President   
   does and however contrary to law he knows his conduct to be, he may, without   
   fear of liability, injure federal employees or any other person within or   
   without the Government.   
      
   Until now, this concept had survived in this country only in the form of   
   sovereign immunity.    
      
    Indeed, the majority turns this rule on its head by declaring that, because   
   the functions of the President's office are so varied and diverse and some of   
   them so profoundly important, the office is unique and must be clothed with   
   office-wide, absolute    
   immunity   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)