Can't imagine the SCOTUS, even this one, saying the POTUS is above the law by default. If they do take it up, they are likely to return it saying the issue can't be decided as a matter of law yet.
It is not about POTUS - or anyone else - being "above the law."
If it were a legitimate criminal case, it would be about whether a former president can now be prosecuted for actions he took while president.
For example, when Bush the Younger attacked Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, there was talk from Democrats that he was really taking vengeance on people who had attempted to assasinate his father. He was compared to Michael Corleone. If they really believed that, they might have come into power and prosecuted Bush for the murders of all the people ho bombed. The question would have been whether a former president can be held criminally responsible for official acts as president.
If the ruling be that he cannot, that would not be him being "above the law." It's a pretty immature way to look at it. It would be about whether a specific official is immune from certain acts, something that applies to many professions. A boxer is not prosecuted for assault if he pummels his opponent to unconsciousness. A surgeon is not charged with murder if he undertakes a risky procedure and the patient dies. There would be no dramatic speech to the jury about a knife-weilding assailant.
But, this is not such a weighty-issued case. This is a bunch of Democrats trying to prosecute a former president for free speech while in office. It has zero validity. It could only fly with a heavily partisan judge, and an incredibly gullible jury. The first normal judge that takes the appeal will toss it out, likely summarily.
On that day, I look forward to the liberal tears cocktails I'll be celebrating with.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
