Yup. They are helping Trump with his delaying tactics.
If they DO say he’s immune, and Trump wins. Well, we are toast.
I love that phrasing: “…immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct ALLEGED to involve official acts…”
Ugly stuff, indeed.
I can see valid reasons for and against. It’s a novel question that involved the President committing crimes that Jack previously pleaded SCOTUS to review. How would they not weigh in/have the last word.
On other hand, the 11th was pretty thorough. I don’t see SCOTUS ruling any different big picture (no immunity), other than having some dissenting/concurring opinions.
WHAT official acts? Trying to overthrow the government is not an official act last time I checked.
Can you honestly say you’re surprised?
Disappointed, yes, but surprised, no. This is what happens when you vote for this generation’s conservatives.
Yeah, but you can allege it to involve…
And Roberts is trying to resurrect the legitimacy if USSC. Sure he is. This court is a joke and a disgrace. I blame Mitch McConnell. He can’t be gone soon enough. The epitome of a double-talking, gutless politician.
Man, Neal Katyal and Andrew Weissmann are both gravely worried. Lisa Rubin too.
Holy cow, I feel sick.
The only reason I can see them taking this, is to put an end to various jurisdictions having to go through all the trump appeals. There is an immunity appeal for I believe ga and fl.
Just get it done now.
Other than the above I can’t see why they would take it up otherwise.
Yeah, it is giving me gore/bush vibes.
What could Smith (or Trumps lawyer’s, for that matter) argue to USSC that they haven’t already already argued to the District Court. Would Smith just cite all the reasons the 11th used when they ruled?
Three good reasons:
- Delay
- Delay
- Delay
Nailed it.
There is hardly anyone in the world more in control of their own schedules than Supreme Court Justices. It will take exactly as long as they (collectively) want it to take.
Thus rendering the point of their ruling entirely moot.
But not their purpose.
Yup, exactly.
Maybe not. But at the very least it’s a two month delay.
Policing the integrity of the election (by which, I’m not saying that he was doing so, just that I believe that to be the official act that Trump is suggesting that he was engaged in.)
Yes, there are glimpses, although I also have not read it.
Might the Supreme Court throw out some but not all charges, leading to a shorter trial?
One such glimpse, for Democrats hoping to win the election on the basis of a felony conviction turning off swing voters, is the 2008 Ted Stevens precedent:
With a last-minute pre-election conviction, the focus would be on the fact of conviction. Whereas if a conviction occurs earlier, the focus by election day would be on Democrats complaining that the sentence was too short, or on the appeal.
I’m not saying it will go down like this. I’m a never-Trump pessimist. But glimpses exist.
How exactly does immunity work, in practice?
Is it considered to be a sort of defense that the defendant can use? I.e. they can say, “If I was acting reasonably in line with my job description, then I’m innocent.” And the jury will be given evidence supporting/rejecting the reasonableness of the activity?
Or is it treated more like a legal bright line that influences the judge’s decisions when deciding whether to accept the docket, what crimes to allow, what evidence to allow, what arguments to allow, etc.?