So this comes down to: Exactly how corrupt are the RW SC Justices? More precisely, what is their price, and who will try to get them an offer?
Whatever that might be, I don’t think Trump can afford it, or he’d have paid it all the other times they ruled against him.
And we should note that Euphonious_Polemic called it:
He lied, claiming they wouldn’t let him talk about “his opponent”, meaning Biden, when it was made clear that the gag order specifically didn’t bar him from discussing purely political issues.
I hope the judge explicitly points out that Trump is allowed to say whatever he wants about Biden, and is even allowed to lie about her order all he wants. But put it on record that Trump is lying about her order.
Look, they’re corrupt, but not in the way you seem to think.
Their goal is not to the highest bidder (except in the cases of Thomas and Alito). It’s to a theory of an illiberal democratic government, along the lines of Viktor Orbán and Hungary. They have no fealty to Trump.
This is very obvious if you’ve been following their rulings as those rulings relate to Trump’s interests. Even Thomas has brushed him back firmly in rulings pertaining to special treatment he was seeking in the Mar-A-Lago documents case. But that’s not the case we’re discussing in this thread.
So you grant the probability that Thomas and Alito can be paid off. Now it’s just a question of the likelihood that out of Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, can three of them be tempted to cast a crucial vote in favor of Trump that runs contrary to their understanding of the law? You say no. I say “Not so fast.” It’s not necessarily money that will do the trick, but pressure from the powerful MAGAnuts they are open to hearing from, and of course the effect that such a vote will have on the U.S. Personally, I think Roberts should be included in the number of Justices who are susceptible to bribes, and Kavanaugh seems like a sleazebag to my way of thinking, so I don’t think we have that far to go to influence the Court’s ruling in favor of Trump, should push come to shove…
Ah, well, here’s where we differ. I prefer to rest my speculation based on evidence.
I hope you’re right.
I saw a YouTube of a judge sentencing an entitled princess for IIRC shoplifting that went exactly that way. She almost “Fuck you!-ed” her way to 20 years in prison. 
Explain the reasoning, please, behind Chutkan’s reluctance to jail Trump for contempt of court, first briefly (almost symbolically) for a few hours, say overnight, with the warning that further iterations of the same contumacious behavior will result in a longer jail stay, and then sentencing him to a two-night jail stay, and then a week, etc.
It seems to me that the only ones who would regard the first, brief, almost symbolical jailing harshly are already in the camp of “Trump’s First Amendment Rights are being Stollen!!!” and that his further contumacious behavior is him bringing jail time on himself.
No?
This one?
That was it. I could not stand to watch more than a couple minutes of the whole vid before my frustration-o-meter boiled over, but that vignette started it off nicely.
Trump would love a “symbolic” jailing. All the publicity with minimal discomfort. To be a punishment, it has to actually cause significant hardship; not just some ritual show.
Yep, he needs the Full Monty here, including being checked for contraband.
Oh, I’m thinking he’d get all the inconveniences of jail on that first mostly symbolic visit, to drive home the point that he really doesn’t want to do this again plus stay in jail for days (and then weeks) on end.
He really wouldn’t have much of a case to make (except to rabid MAGA nuts) that his rights are being seriously curtailed when he’s jailed for a few hours first time around. After that, it’s all on him whether he chooses to spend additional time behind bars.
And his attorneys would fire up the cruel and unusual punishment angle.
Hey, if we make the punishment fit the crime/criminal, then “cruel and unusual” fits him neatly.
Because depriving someone of their liberty is a very serious matter. It’s a last resort, not what a court starts with.
I haven’t any proof of this and I certainly haven’t done any sort of analysis of what’s out there, but ISTM that if his name was Velomont and not Trump, there would already be jail time for some of the things he’s done (not specifically wrt to this charge). I think that’s why these sorts of questions are being asked - he just skates through, unencumbered by consequences.
Here is my dream scenario:
Judge tells Trumps lawyers that he has violated the judges orders, and must show up in has chambers at 9AM sharp to discuss the issue. Judge shows up at 1:30 PM leaving Trump sitting in the court room cell phone confiscated for 4 and a half hours. When the judge does show up he explains to Trump as one might to a child the reason he is being called in and the reason the judge gave the order, including asking him the sort of “Can you tell me why what you did was bad?” type questions. Finally he sentences Trump to write by hand, by himself, without any help from anyone else 700 word essay on the importance of civility in society, which will be entered into the court record. When that is done to a degree that satisfies the judge only then will he be allowed to leave.
The point being to completely emasculate Trump and pound into his tiny little brain that he is not in control the judge is, and all his bluster, money and clout amounts to a fart in a hurricane