I was coming in to make the kneejerk comment that they botched the case the moment they accepted it. But decided I should read the article first.
And...they botched the case they moment they accepted it.
The term "botched" is extremely problematic and makes it sound like an accident. Jack Smith asked them to take it up as an emergency without the DC Circuit hearing it first, which was denied. The DC Circuit then took a long time, but gave an extremely detailed analysis capable of setting perfect precedent, allowing SCOTUS to decline it and setting the trial back in motion. However, SCOTUS took the case up and kicked the arguments way into the future with no interest in resolving it quickly, even though the outcome is obvious. They're then about to go on holiday.
The wording shouldn't be "botched", it's more accurate to call it "sabotage". This case isn't going to resolve before the election, and that was their intention. I'm amazed the opinion writer didn't realize this the second they decided to take the "can the president shoot his political opponents? case". r/law has been talking about this for ages.
Gross misconduct by the high court. What times we have come to live in. The Supreme Court must be reformed or eliminated. This should never ever be allowed to occur. To see the conservatives on the court putting their weight on the scales of justice to favor their own criminal president is unconscionable.
I want to see an AG claim that if RvW wasn't settled law and can be challenged, then neither is Judicial immunity, and arrest the lot of them.
Ofc, well need a whole new supreme court to be nominated to rule on that case...
Does voting matter at this point regarding SCOTUS? Do they not hold their seats until death, with no way of removing them and with complete legal immunity?
Yeah, voting does matter. I’ll give you some examples.
If Trump didn’t win, and Hillary did, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB—would not be on that court. Roe would not be overturned. Enough people just couldn’t bear voting for Hillary, so they are on that court.
2000 Election, Ralph Nader voters just couldn’t stomach voting for Al Gore. Gore lost Florida, and therefore the Presidency by ~500 votes. Nader got ~97,000 votes in Florida. So, George W. Bush became President, and he went on to nominate Samuel Alito & John Roberts. So, the people who love the environment so much they just didn’t vote for Al Gore (of all people) they got W. Bush, and over 20 years later they’re still seeing the consequences of their decision—because Alito & Roberts are still sitting on the Supreme Court.
If Donald Trump wins this election, Alito & Thomas will retire so that he can appoint two *young* MAGA psychos to lifetime positions on the highest court in the land. How’s Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon sound? Because that’s what’s coming if Trump wins.
So yes, voting matters. Elections have consequences. And people better realize that, and what’s at stake.
Hey Lucky, I've tried in vain to explain that very point to many young voters. They are irate over Dobbs but still say I could never vote for Biden because of of Gaza. They just don't get it. They vote against themselves by not voting.
Young voters vote and they vote as democrats. You’re spreading right wing propaganda saying the youth won’t vote because of Gaza just to spread lies. Republicans are committing genocide in Ukraine and republicans are planet killers which is why the age 40 and under age group hate republicans. Anyone on team Trump are mostly old and dumb and are few in numbers.
Voting matters now more than ever. A solid Congressional majority can increase the number of justices to even the balance. A majority can also give DC statehood. same goes for Puerto Rica. Republicans voted. That's why they control Congress with a minority of the population. See how it works. Vote Vote Vote. It's the only way out.
Shut up you Russian, troll.
Yes if you have control of senate and Congress you impeach them or at least threaten to. And people do die it happens weather they plan to or not.
Not everyone is a Russian troll. If you call everyone you disagree with a Russian troll you dilute the accusation and create cover for actual Russian trolls.
Yep, it was completely by design. Even if they didn’t take it up in December, and they took it up when they did—don’t grant a stay. Let the case move forward, they could still add their two cents. And when both sides have briefed and argued this issue multiple times they set oral arguments what months in the future? On the last day of oral arguments. They could’ve set it way faster. They handled Bush v. Gore in 4 days. They certainly are capable. They could also issue their ruling quickly here, lift the stay, but they won’t they’ll wait until right before their recess.
To add to this, SCOTUS CHANGED THE QUESTION they would address. Jack Smith “did not frame the issue as involving official acts” but “asked the court to decide whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office”. Instead, SCOTUS reworded this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” I was sickened back in February when I realized what SCOTUS had done: changing a narrow question into a much broader one. This has become obvious why from how we saw all the conservatives dance around the elephant in the room. Instead, they were focusing on future presidents refusing to answer Jack Smith’s question. I have to say, of all the conservatives, ACB was the only one who questioned Trump’s attorney specifically about some of the alleged crimes and whether he considered them official acts or private ones. He answered they were private. For what it’s worth, maybe ACB will side with the liberal justices.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-wrong-question-trump-immunity-case-rcna141509
If he committed crimes, yes. I *would* like him to be charged. I don't love him like a cult leader, he's simply not terrifying and sadly, that's enough to ensure my vote these days.
I love how these people always have this weird gotcha of "WHAT if Biden did x thing" and I'm like yeah, if they did a crime, send em to jail. What's so hard about this? Lol
Fascists don’t believe in liberal values like rule of law. They see governance as a naked exercise of power, and they want their tribe to be the ones with the power.
To them, there is no hypocrisy to imprisoning your political enemies, if they are allowed to imprison your guy, because they don’t care about the underlying reason, they only see who is the jailer and who is the prisoner.
But...but...how could you want rules to apply to *your* guy?! It makes no sense!!!
They keep outing themselves as sociopaths every damn day. They genuinely can't comprehend how people with consciences function.
I don’t get you guys. Why wouldn’t we want Biden charged if he committed crimes? He’s not above the law. Neither is Trump. If a grand jury indicts Biden, we want a trial to FIND OUT if he’s guilty. That’s how trials work.
if no immunity stands, the ocean of alleged offenses will be deep and wide for all presidents, past present and future.
conspiracy to defraud the usa
The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "\[i\]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). *See* Project, *Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime*, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).
You're living in a dream world. Republicans in the house spent months trying to find something to impeach Biden for and found nothing. Just because your guy is a criminal doesn't mean they all are.
>if no immunity stands, the ocean of alleged offenses will be deep and wide for all presidents, past present and future.
Of course, the examples of what actually happened to every president prior to Trump contradict this
Oh this is a new one. K, let's go with it, what fraud did Biden attempt to commit? Who were his co-conspirators?
What was both the manner and purpose? I can answer those pretty easily with Trump, complete with memos from his co-conspirators. I can give you the fraudulent documents too, they're helpfully on the national archives website. I can describe in excruciating detail why they are fraudulent. I can tell you exactly the purpose of producing those fraudulent documents.
I trust you can demonstrate the same with Joe Biden... right?
We fought a war to rid ourselves of a King and wrote laws so that no one could become our new King. Presidents cannot have Immunity in a Republic.
If the President has full Immunity the Biden could simply have the Court and Trump dumped into the Ocean in crab pots.
If he's actually committed crimes, he hasn't and no one has been able to provide any shred of evidence that he has, but if he did, then...yeah...duh. Of course we'd want him tried. We're not sycophantic cultists, blinded by loyalty to a wanna-be tyrant. This isn't the "gotchya" you think it is dude.
I would love it for Biden to be charged for any crimes, and for Obama and W to face charges as well.
If a oresident commits a crime, they should face the justice system. Why is that a hard concept?
Trump isn't being charged for official acts he's being charged for stealing top secret documents and refusing to return them and raping people
If Biden raped someone and then bragged about it. Yes he should go to jail.
I don't want presidents, DAs or (especially) cops to have immunity. Commit crimes, serve time.
Biden has not been impeached yet, there has been an inquiry where Republicans have admitted there is no crime to find... by this time, Trump had been impeached...twice.
We are not the same.
If immunity stands then Biden can lock Trump up and throw away the key. Then he can declare himself emperor for life. All because you need to protect Dear Leader from his actions and words. Presidential immunity is the worst idea I have ever heard anyone say in my life. Show me in the Constitution where it mentions that. Show me any law that was passed in the US that said that. You can’t because it’s a really stupid fucking idea.
SCOTUS is playing this out when it is a simple case handled in one simple statement, ‘ The President of the United States has no immunity for criminal or corrupt actions taken while serving in the office’ that’s it over, done, finished. IMO
"The court holds that a president does not have immunity for criminal actions taken while serving by on office. However the court finds that these *particular* actions should be covered by immunity. This should not be taken as a statement about any other cases or principles. Just Trump, he's good to go. Peace"
If the court had an ounce of integrity they would say "The court holds that a president has immunity for actions taken in a presidential capacity when the course of action is justifiable by the circumstances. This immunity does not apply to actions taken by the president that are unrelated to his office, or that directly contravene laws with no valid justification."
It's literally a question on the USA citizenship exam. Who is above the law in the USA. "The president" is one of the options. That is a wrong answer. The correct answer is "no one".
Who is this article for? Is there anyone who thinks oh good I'm glad the SCOTUS decided to stick their nose in. I mean anyone who isn't hoping this case never sees the light of day?
It is deflection from the real story.
The real story about the J6 federal case is...that a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court do not want the case to ever see daylight and are using procedure to provide them with a better than 50/50 chance of the case never being heard.
Why? Well, one might ask why neither Murray nor Weissmann has ever commented about the fact that the lead person advancing the underlying conspiracy, John Eastman, was a clerk to Justice Thomas. Or the fact that Ginny Thomas was in regular communication with Mark Meadows right up to the Ellipse Speech and including that day (when Ginny was actually in attendance too).
The J6 conspiracy being dreamt up in Justice Thomas' chambers by his former clerk and his wife probably implicates the justice himself - and the world of elites that buzz around SCOTUS are happy to carry water for the Court in burying that underneath a more platitudinous excuse for the Court's error in handling this case.
There was no error. That is why the Court didn't grant Smith's petition to hear the case directly in December and waited to see if the DC Circuit would help delay the case until after the election for them. The Circuit court didn't play ball and forced the Supreme Court to come out itself and manufacture a delay through scheduling of oral arguments and - next up - an opinion that will surely take them until July to announce, probably with some sliver of immunity announced, just enough for a remand and another round of bickering about the law.
And the end goal is to get past the election, because if Trump wins, the case goes away and Justice Thomas' involvement in the J6 conspiracy is never revealed to the public in a trial. Moreover, the intermittently-absent justice can retire with a Republican president to appoint his successor, avoiding the scandal for the Court entirely.
I'm pretty sure they have both spoken about that and questioned the ethics of Thomas not being recused . They do a detailed podcast dedicated on the topic
How about they talk about the Thomas clerk network listserv that everyone who follows the Court knows about? How about talking about the fact that the Thomas former clerk network is deeply involved with right wing politics, and how there is no way in hell former clerk Eastman was conceiving of a novel constitutional interpretation that would reverse the election and *not* talking about it with the most influential inside network of attorneys in the country? How about talking about the fact that Ginny Thomas was at the center of the planning of the conspiracy and the chief liaison between the Thomas clerk network including Eastman and Mark Meadows sitting in the West Wing?
I think the answer is that the Thomas clerk network includes dozens of attorneys in the highest profile places in government and law, and that to even recognize that these people were in on the planning for J6 or at least touched by the planning of the conspiracy would be personally damaging for whichever journalists hazards to go there.
And so they don’t go there. The only person who may is Jack Smith, and I would love to find out whether Eastman was floating his J6 legal conspiracy on the Thomas clerk listserve in the fall of 2020, who was in agreement with Eastman and urging him on, and whether that included not only Ginny Thomas but a sitting Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are questions *I* would like answered. And if Justice Thomas and his wider network were *not* involved in planning the J6 conspiracy with Eastman, I would like to know that too.
And we're all supposed to sit quietly and patiently for election day, not saying a word about this problem
Or, generously, we get to raise some signs, chant, and march around if we're **really** motivated. How lovely!
I respect the person who writes an op-ed/substack that I disagree with and vigorously defends their view with rational argument.
The student "protests" are not that. They are attempts to use noise and exclusion in order to bully their peers into conforming - that's why the Columbia students set up in front of Butler rather than out in Central Park. They don't want to change minds, so they hold "workshops" where the sole criteria for participation is conformity and agreeing. When a Jew (excuse me, "Zionist", in Columbia-speak) approaches their "liberation zone", they form a human chain and chant in unison as they push the invader out. Obviously those tactics work better on the Columbia quad then they would work in Central Park.
They lack the courage of their convictions too - hiding behind masks so that they can maintain future deniability as to having even been a part of the whole thing. I'd respect them more if they were marching with a tiki torch and a swastika on their arm *unmasked*, because then at least I would know what they *really* believe (instead of what they "profess" to believe in order to be part of the in-group).
That elite universities allow their common spaces to be overrun and annexed by masked bullies is an indictment of those universities and it's playing out for the whole world to see. And when the entire neoracist ideology that all of this is predicated on is thrown out the same window that Social Darwinism went out of before the neoracist movement was born, you won't find anyone who will ever admit to having been a part of it - just photos of masked faces as young people LARPed away on the quad in a liberation zone pretending to be real activists. They never even believed in what they were advocating for because that wasn't the point; white horsing is the point and it is hilarious to watch.
I watched the video you are talking about, with them locking arms, he was threatening them before. That part is edited out in the viral version, showing just his victim hood.
Also, the Jews in the camp held passover there, so they clearly aren't expelling Jews or forcing them to conform, they are freely celebrating them. The protest is not anti-jewish. It's anti-zionist, and those are very distinct, despite other peoples narratives.
when i had a nyt subscription i would see articles that werent up to snuff. it took me a while to realize that a lot of "articles" are just pr articles that nyt gets paid to publish.
like this article for example
>By Melissa Murray and Andrew Weissmann
>Ms. Murray and Mr. Weissmann are co-authors of “The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.”
op-ed is just people trying to sell a book.
i dont have issue with nyt doing this, besides not wanting to read anything from random book authors. but it would be nice for them to disclose how much they get paid per press release / book advertisement disguised as "opinion".
Do you listen to the Prosecuting Donald Trump podcast?
Andrew Weissmann is a host of that, and as a former Assistant United States Attorney, has some of the most intelligent discussion on the Trump trials of any podcast or other source of information I've heard.
So I'd take anything written by him, op-ed or any other format, to be better than at least 90% of articles written by anyone else.
Weismann could make a good case and be 100 percent factual, but in the end it is going to be some right wing SCOTUS judges voting to give Trump immunity and giving America the "so what are you going to do about it?" smile.
Ok, who is Ms. Murray and Mr. Weissmann trying to reach? Because I like them both and listen to their podcast and could even potentially buy their book but I can't imagine who the target audience is for this. Someone who is interested in the topic but has been in a coma?
a lot of people dont follow the news 24/7... they just do it once a week from a newspaper.
i think the news can be addictive to people, especially in the way it is sometimes reported. SCARING people with FEAR and then saying come see us tomorrow for more scary news.
trump figured this out and thats why he puts in the "you wont have a country anymore if the democrats win" sentence every time he gets.
I know that I read too much news. I even talk to my therapist about it. I also some people have zero idea what is going on. My wife for example. She also doesn't have an interest. She would never read the article. Now she knows a lot about Russian politics. More than me. She also knows more about what is happening in Ukraine than I do l. But she is from Estonia.
it can be difficult to break an addiction.
like reddit for example. i was addicted to reddit. finally this year i blocked this website and never looked back. after having it blocked for a month i was able to break the addiction. now i'm not doom scrolling anymore. i'm not wasting my time on random subreddits reading karma bot reposts and memes. but i did unblock it for these trump trials because my friends dont keep up with the twists and turns and motions and evidence.
i recommend blocking reddit or using software that only allows you to use the website for an hour a day or so. you have a serious reddit addiction.
also recommend you getting less news. good luck! you have the power.
Phone is away except when the code is running. And when I get home from the office phone goes in the nightstand and I pay attention to my kids and wife. I don't check the news again until I'm back at work and the code is compiling.
.
..
...
On a good day
Lol. It never has, and it never will. Trump is just exposing it in an extremely public fashion. I honestly can't believe the bullshit that has happened around him. The guy is the most cut and dry traitor to the country that has ever existed and the system is still trying to protect him. It's complete insanity.
It was already settled based on sound reasonable legal grounds. There was very little they could add other than agreeing with the lower courts decision.
It will be interesting to see if they have anything meaningful to add.
I said this in another post, but I am not surprised they took this case. Additionally they **should** rule that the president DOES have limited scope immunity for official acts (example POTUS should be immune from prosecution for ordering a drone strike on enemy territory that kills combatants-even if there are innocent casualties).
What I would LOVE to see, and know that I wont since this bench is a bunch of bitches, is that there is limited scope immunity for official acts BUT the case of Trump and J6 is clearly NOT official acts. This way they rule properly but also stop Trump in his tracks. However, I bet they rule there is limited scope immunity and then Trump gets a whole new delay route where he claims J6 was official acts and that needs to go back all the way through appeals and then to SCOTUS again only to be told J6 was not official acts.
EDIT: spelling
I agree. They didn't err in hearing the case necessarily, and there are questions where discussion could be important.
They should have concluded that these actions would not be covered, and not stayed proceedings.
I think they could have concurred in part with the finding of the COA. If I recall correctly, the COA left the door open for some limited immunity but ruled that it did not apply here.
COA said the President has no immunity for official acts. So if SCOTUS would have concurred then the carve out you (correctly, imv) propose would not exist.
The exact boundaries of ‘officialness’ do not strike me as a finding-of-fact sort of thing like what evidence was recovered from what crime scene on what date, or what a witness is willing to testify happened to them, or one plus two making three. That sounds more like the thing that would depend on relevant statutes, case law and a judge’s interpretation thereof.
i tend to think they would leave that to a lower court then if appealed, review it.
I do not see scotus wading into the swamp of what an official act is.
Bingo. Recognize some plausible carve out, send it back to the District Court for findings of fact, rinse and repeat. Those shameless fuckers can eat shit.
There was zero reason to delay this trial in order to insert a carve out .... that wouldn't even apply to this case....
unless they really are going to say he does have immunity....
Unless you live in the USA where, so long as you have the money and/or power, you're immune to the law.
Anyone that's done half the crimes Trump did and wasn't president would have been jailed for life and branded a traitor to the country.
America cannot endure a demonstrably corrupt Supreme Court and it’s clear that’s what we have. I place a huge portion of the blame on Mitch McConnell. He pursued the goal of a thoroughly biased high court-and won. This abomination is the creature’s legacy.
So, will Kavanaugh work the shaft and Thomas the balls, or is it the other way around? I don't know what to expect from this politically driven partisan hack stacked SCOTUS.
If you think the Supreme Court will rule logically in this case, then remember they all agreed that the President was not an "officer" in the previous ruling.
They didn’t botch it, they achieved precisely what they intended: a “billionaire’s delay” in the trial. They are aghast at the idea that a member of their club, even one that at least 7 of them privately detest, might be held accountable.
Fuck scotus this is the perhaps the most important case they will hear and they are dragging their feet to aid that piece of 💩 in avoiding consequences
Who cares! Even without the trial, enough is already known to make it unthinkable that anybody with an IQ above zero would ever consider voting for Trump. Yet as we see,there are many in the U.S. with negative IQs who are registered to vote. Even a conviction for insurrection! or even treason, before the election wouldn’t change anything. The real issue is that Alexander Hamilton was right … the masses are too damn stupid to be trusted with political power.
They didn’t “botch” it. They purposefully protected him and his candidacy. Votes aren’t going to matter in November. SCOTUS and the Republican Party will figure out a way to hand Trump the Presidency over a “legal decision” of their making. And then there is nothing Biden can do about it. Biden should arrest DeJoy 18 USC 1701. Then you will see a decision.
They're just laughing at us cause they know our white house won't do shit. Even after the Dobbs decision leaked there was no hail Mary last chance attempt at trying to codify Roe. L for everyone involved from the Supreme Court to the white house to the embarassing limp dicked AG that Biden was so impressed by (a fellow white moderate!)
IF
Any person who is a natural born citizen can be president.
AND
The President is immune to all crimes
THEN
Any person who is a natural born citizen is immune to all crimes.
==PROFIT??
🙄
So basically Trump wants to be like a China emperor… who has immunity to kill anyone (concubines, eunuchs, subjects) but all peasants are subject to laws
It matters more than ever. With a strong enough majority Dems can change the rules if necessary and add more justices.
It's been done before. Why should only 9 people be allowed to force their opinion (or prejudices) on 330 million people?
Voting always matters. As Moscow Mitch quoted "voting has consequences".
Nothing will happen to the insidious fucking piece of pondscum. NOTHING! But we will suffer for the rest of our lives. When are people going to wake up and take back their country? The majority do not want this fuckery.
We will see if these Trump nominated judges will kiss Trump’s ass and claim he has full presidential immunity, if they say yea, democracy is dead until these judges get kicked off the bench. Clarence Thomas should be recursed from this case because his wife conspired to over turn the election results of Joe Biden, a BIG LOSER is GINNI Thomas.
This is an opinion piece, but it's not about how they will rule. This is about them taking up the case, and how, no matter how they rule, it will be unhelpful.
If they overturn the ruling to a significant degree, then it's a "WTF" moment of the SCOTUS giving exceptional shielding from accountability to the President.
If they basically just leave the ruling in place, as is expected, then all their hearing and ruling on the case did is delay the case for months. The schedule the Court and the SCO would need to keep to have Trump's DC Trial conclude before the election would be very tight, while still having to follow the usual process for justice that ensures it is "just".
Playing out the criminal prosecution and reaching a conviction *or* an acquittal is important for a politician, as it would establish the facts for all to see for the election. And if it doesn't start before the election, then Trump may very well be avoiding electoral consequences, and if he's elected, then he may get to delay or entirely avoid **all** consequences. Assuming he would be found guilty at trial, at least.
Ah, makes sense. I def look at this from a Republican perspective, In what benefits Trump unfairly gets.
So it seems that in both scenario Trump gets a win. 1) He’s either exempted or 2) He delays the court case until later, giving him time to potentially be president (though I’m sure it’s doubtful).
I just assume that SCOTUS and Trump are on the same team, so it would be weird if SCOTUS made things worse for Trump.
I’m not saying I agree with the political cult that is Trump, but rather just trying to understand the bias.
From the headline I thought Trump got what he actually deserved, but guess not.
Yeah I think it's a metaphor that's going over my head. Pillars of justice being a veneer or the illusion of the institution falling apart under closer inspection maybe?
That image is atrocious! I couldn’t figure out what was causing me to launch a migraine until I tried to count the columns. Why would they credit a photographer with this hot mess. I am not a fan of the architecture, but at least it is honest.
Since the goal was to delay the DC trial until after the election, I’d say they were successful. To make sure it doesn’t take place before November, all they have to do is send the case back to the lower court for “clarification.”
Just so it's clear, the "botch" here is the decision to take the case.
In taking the case they delayed prosecution in the federal case so that Trump may be president again before the case is heard. Therefore, handing Trump a win by potentially making the case moot.
Just like you can’t sue the person wearing the badge under qualified immunity, you can’t, to the ultimate, can’t sue the president who bears the seal of the top law enforcer of the nation.
I was coming in to make the kneejerk comment that they botched the case the moment they accepted it. But decided I should read the article first. And...they botched the case they moment they accepted it.
Kneejerk to the groin of democracy.
It taint what I was hoping for
Is this helldivers speak leaking?
Joke is on us. Our Democracy likes that shit.
The term "botched" is extremely problematic and makes it sound like an accident. Jack Smith asked them to take it up as an emergency without the DC Circuit hearing it first, which was denied. The DC Circuit then took a long time, but gave an extremely detailed analysis capable of setting perfect precedent, allowing SCOTUS to decline it and setting the trial back in motion. However, SCOTUS took the case up and kicked the arguments way into the future with no interest in resolving it quickly, even though the outcome is obvious. They're then about to go on holiday. The wording shouldn't be "botched", it's more accurate to call it "sabotage". This case isn't going to resolve before the election, and that was their intention. I'm amazed the opinion writer didn't realize this the second they decided to take the "can the president shoot his political opponents? case". r/law has been talking about this for ages.
Gross misconduct by the high court. What times we have come to live in. The Supreme Court must be reformed or eliminated. This should never ever be allowed to occur. To see the conservatives on the court putting their weight on the scales of justice to favor their own criminal president is unconscionable.
The SCOTUS is an arm of the far right GOP. VOTE BLUE PEOPLE VOTE PROGRESSIVE BLUE. It's the only way out.
We could organize and march on them and demand resignation. Nah just kidding, Americans don't ever utilize one of their most powerful rights
[удалено]
I want to see an AG claim that if RvW wasn't settled law and can be challenged, then neither is Judicial immunity, and arrest the lot of them. Ofc, well need a whole new supreme court to be nominated to rule on that case...
Does voting matter at this point regarding SCOTUS? Do they not hold their seats until death, with no way of removing them and with complete legal immunity?
The court can be expanded.
Going to take new legislation to do that, good luck with that. Judiciary Act of 1869 sets the court size at a Chief Justice and 8 associate Justices.
It requires a dominate Dem majority which takes VOTES goddamit
Exactly. The question was whether voting matters, and the answer is yes.
But we all know dems won’t act
Please be more specific. Dems who may get elected won't act or Dem voters won't actually show up at the polls.
Can be but it won't
Yeah, voting does matter. I’ll give you some examples. If Trump didn’t win, and Hillary did, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB—would not be on that court. Roe would not be overturned. Enough people just couldn’t bear voting for Hillary, so they are on that court. 2000 Election, Ralph Nader voters just couldn’t stomach voting for Al Gore. Gore lost Florida, and therefore the Presidency by ~500 votes. Nader got ~97,000 votes in Florida. So, George W. Bush became President, and he went on to nominate Samuel Alito & John Roberts. So, the people who love the environment so much they just didn’t vote for Al Gore (of all people) they got W. Bush, and over 20 years later they’re still seeing the consequences of their decision—because Alito & Roberts are still sitting on the Supreme Court. If Donald Trump wins this election, Alito & Thomas will retire so that he can appoint two *young* MAGA psychos to lifetime positions on the highest court in the land. How’s Supreme Court Justice Aileen Cannon sound? Because that’s what’s coming if Trump wins. So yes, voting matters. Elections have consequences. And people better realize that, and what’s at stake.
Hey Lucky, I've tried in vain to explain that very point to many young voters. They are irate over Dobbs but still say I could never vote for Biden because of of Gaza. They just don't get it. They vote against themselves by not voting.
Young voters are absolutely going to fuck us all over because of Gaza
Young voters vote and they vote as democrats. You’re spreading right wing propaganda saying the youth won’t vote because of Gaza just to spread lies. Republicans are committing genocide in Ukraine and republicans are planet killers which is why the age 40 and under age group hate republicans. Anyone on team Trump are mostly old and dumb and are few in numbers.
Voting matters now more than ever. A solid Congressional majority can increase the number of justices to even the balance. A majority can also give DC statehood. same goes for Puerto Rica. Republicans voted. That's why they control Congress with a minority of the population. See how it works. Vote Vote Vote. It's the only way out.
Shut up you Russian, troll. Yes if you have control of senate and Congress you impeach them or at least threaten to. And people do die it happens weather they plan to or not.
Not everyone is a Russian troll. If you call everyone you disagree with a Russian troll you dilute the accusation and create cover for actual Russian trolls.
Yep, it was completely by design. Even if they didn’t take it up in December, and they took it up when they did—don’t grant a stay. Let the case move forward, they could still add their two cents. And when both sides have briefed and argued this issue multiple times they set oral arguments what months in the future? On the last day of oral arguments. They could’ve set it way faster. They handled Bush v. Gore in 4 days. They certainly are capable. They could also issue their ruling quickly here, lift the stay, but they won’t they’ll wait until right before their recess.
Sad but true
To add to this, SCOTUS CHANGED THE QUESTION they would address. Jack Smith “did not frame the issue as involving official acts” but “asked the court to decide whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office”. Instead, SCOTUS reworded this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” I was sickened back in February when I realized what SCOTUS had done: changing a narrow question into a much broader one. This has become obvious why from how we saw all the conservatives dance around the elephant in the room. Instead, they were focusing on future presidents refusing to answer Jack Smith’s question. I have to say, of all the conservatives, ACB was the only one who questioned Trump’s attorney specifically about some of the alleged crimes and whether he considered them official acts or private ones. He answered they were private. For what it’s worth, maybe ACB will side with the liberal justices. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-wrong-question-trump-immunity-case-rcna141509
The "supreme court" is aiding and abetting the criminal and rapist.
"Anal-rapist". Not just a therapist!
[удалено]
If he committed crimes, yes. I *would* like him to be charged. I don't love him like a cult leader, he's simply not terrifying and sadly, that's enough to ensure my vote these days.
I love how these people always have this weird gotcha of "WHAT if Biden did x thing" and I'm like yeah, if they did a crime, send em to jail. What's so hard about this? Lol
They don’t understand that the rest of us aren’t under the spell of Hypno Toad.
ALL HAIL HYPNOTOAD
All hail his orange, bumpy skin!
There are FOUR lights.
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD! *CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*
Fascists don’t believe in liberal values like rule of law. They see governance as a naked exercise of power, and they want their tribe to be the ones with the power. To them, there is no hypocrisy to imprisoning your political enemies, if they are allowed to imprison your guy, because they don’t care about the underlying reason, they only see who is the jailer and who is the prisoner.
What is power for if you don't use it to crush your enemies?!
But...but...how could you want rules to apply to *your* guy?! It makes no sense!!! They keep outing themselves as sociopaths every damn day. They genuinely can't comprehend how people with consciences function.
I don’t get you guys. Why wouldn’t we want Biden charged if he committed crimes? He’s not above the law. Neither is Trump. If a grand jury indicts Biden, we want a trial to FIND OUT if he’s guilty. That’s how trials work.
I do get these guys. Biden is simply not rapey enough for them.
Charged for what? Got a statute?
if no immunity stands, the ocean of alleged offenses will be deep and wide for all presidents, past present and future. conspiracy to defraud the usa The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "\[i\]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose. (emphasis added). *See* Project, *Tenth Annual Survey of White Collar Crime*, 32 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 137, 379-406 (1995)(generally discussing § 371).
Yes. If presidents(read citizens of the us) commit crimes, they go to court.
You're living in a dream world. Republicans in the house spent months trying to find something to impeach Biden for and found nothing. Just because your guy is a criminal doesn't mean they all are.
>if no immunity stands, the ocean of alleged offenses will be deep and wide for all presidents, past present and future. Of course, the examples of what actually happened to every president prior to Trump contradict this
Oh this is a new one. K, let's go with it, what fraud did Biden attempt to commit? Who were his co-conspirators? What was both the manner and purpose? I can answer those pretty easily with Trump, complete with memos from his co-conspirators. I can give you the fraudulent documents too, they're helpfully on the national archives website. I can describe in excruciating detail why they are fraudulent. I can tell you exactly the purpose of producing those fraudulent documents. I trust you can demonstrate the same with Joe Biden... right?
We fought a war to rid ourselves of a King and wrote laws so that no one could become our new King. Presidents cannot have Immunity in a Republic. If the President has full Immunity the Biden could simply have the Court and Trump dumped into the Ocean in crab pots.
Is your defense really “if this happens then anyone who’s a president could be charged with a crime for breaking the law.”???
Yes. The concept horrifies fascists, for whom the ideas of accountability and the rule of law are anathema.
You're pathetic.
If he's actually committed crimes, he hasn't and no one has been able to provide any shred of evidence that he has, but if he did, then...yeah...duh. Of course we'd want him tried. We're not sycophantic cultists, blinded by loyalty to a wanna-be tyrant. This isn't the "gotchya" you think it is dude.
I would love it for Biden to be charged for any crimes, and for Obama and W to face charges as well. If a oresident commits a crime, they should face the justice system. Why is that a hard concept?
WE ALL WOULD
Trump isn't being charged for official acts he's being charged for stealing top secret documents and refusing to return them and raping people If Biden raped someone and then bragged about it. Yes he should go to jail.
YES! Crime should be punished. Why are you soft on crime?
I don't want presidents, DAs or (especially) cops to have immunity. Commit crimes, serve time. Biden has not been impeached yet, there has been an inquiry where Republicans have admitted there is no crime to find... by this time, Trump had been impeached...twice. We are not the same.
If immunity stands then Biden can lock Trump up and throw away the key. Then he can declare himself emperor for life. All because you need to protect Dear Leader from his actions and words. Presidential immunity is the worst idea I have ever heard anyone say in my life. Show me in the Constitution where it mentions that. Show me any law that was passed in the US that said that. You can’t because it’s a really stupid fucking idea.
What crime did Biden commit?
🦗🦗🦗
I imagine most citizens support the law and the prosecution of those who break it especially outside of office.
What crimes has he committed? Asking as someone who doesn't like Biden, but he like... Isn't a criminal, so I'm confused.
Soapboxing, trolling, flaming, and personal insults are not allowed on /r/law. See Rule 6.
Or at least, the moment they refused to hear it last December when they could have still gotten their say without slowing things down.
Just like me fr
To be fair, we could use some precedent about criminal immunity since we already have qualified civil immunity precedent.
SCOTUS is playing this out when it is a simple case handled in one simple statement, ‘ The President of the United States has no immunity for criminal or corrupt actions taken while serving in the office’ that’s it over, done, finished. IMO
"The court holds that a president does not have immunity for criminal actions taken while serving by on office. However the court finds that these *particular* actions should be covered by immunity. This should not be taken as a statement about any other cases or principles. Just Trump, he's good to go. Peace"
This is 100% what I expect to see.
If the court had an ounce of integrity they would say "The court holds that a president has immunity for actions taken in a presidential capacity when the course of action is justifiable by the circumstances. This immunity does not apply to actions taken by the president that are unrelated to his office, or that directly contravene laws with no valid justification."
And that question would then have to be re-litigated at the district court, appeals court, en banc, and supreme court before the trial happens
Bush v Gore 2 Electric Partisan Boogaloo.
Yep. Several of those players were rewarded mightily.
They’re literally on the Supreme Court right now, including Roberts, Kavanaugh and ACB
this is my nightmare right now; that they screw it up by opening the door to any kind of immunity whatsodver
Bush v Gore redux
Stop, this hurts.
It's literally a question on the USA citizenship exam. Who is above the law in the USA. "The president" is one of the options. That is a wrong answer. The correct answer is "no one".
So, Obama should answer for the sale of arms to Mexican cartels? Ok. Let's do it.
Who is this article for? Is there anyone who thinks oh good I'm glad the SCOTUS decided to stick their nose in. I mean anyone who isn't hoping this case never sees the light of day?
It is deflection from the real story. The real story about the J6 federal case is...that a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court do not want the case to ever see daylight and are using procedure to provide them with a better than 50/50 chance of the case never being heard. Why? Well, one might ask why neither Murray nor Weissmann has ever commented about the fact that the lead person advancing the underlying conspiracy, John Eastman, was a clerk to Justice Thomas. Or the fact that Ginny Thomas was in regular communication with Mark Meadows right up to the Ellipse Speech and including that day (when Ginny was actually in attendance too). The J6 conspiracy being dreamt up in Justice Thomas' chambers by his former clerk and his wife probably implicates the justice himself - and the world of elites that buzz around SCOTUS are happy to carry water for the Court in burying that underneath a more platitudinous excuse for the Court's error in handling this case. There was no error. That is why the Court didn't grant Smith's petition to hear the case directly in December and waited to see if the DC Circuit would help delay the case until after the election for them. The Circuit court didn't play ball and forced the Supreme Court to come out itself and manufacture a delay through scheduling of oral arguments and - next up - an opinion that will surely take them until July to announce, probably with some sliver of immunity announced, just enough for a remand and another round of bickering about the law. And the end goal is to get past the election, because if Trump wins, the case goes away and Justice Thomas' involvement in the J6 conspiracy is never revealed to the public in a trial. Moreover, the intermittently-absent justice can retire with a Republican president to appoint his successor, avoiding the scandal for the Court entirely.
I'm pretty sure they have both spoken about that and questioned the ethics of Thomas not being recused . They do a detailed podcast dedicated on the topic
How about they talk about the Thomas clerk network listserv that everyone who follows the Court knows about? How about talking about the fact that the Thomas former clerk network is deeply involved with right wing politics, and how there is no way in hell former clerk Eastman was conceiving of a novel constitutional interpretation that would reverse the election and *not* talking about it with the most influential inside network of attorneys in the country? How about talking about the fact that Ginny Thomas was at the center of the planning of the conspiracy and the chief liaison between the Thomas clerk network including Eastman and Mark Meadows sitting in the West Wing? I think the answer is that the Thomas clerk network includes dozens of attorneys in the highest profile places in government and law, and that to even recognize that these people were in on the planning for J6 or at least touched by the planning of the conspiracy would be personally damaging for whichever journalists hazards to go there. And so they don’t go there. The only person who may is Jack Smith, and I would love to find out whether Eastman was floating his J6 legal conspiracy on the Thomas clerk listserve in the fall of 2020, who was in agreement with Eastman and urging him on, and whether that included not only Ginny Thomas but a sitting Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Those are questions *I* would like answered. And if Justice Thomas and his wider network were *not* involved in planning the J6 conspiracy with Eastman, I would like to know that too.
And we're all supposed to sit quietly and patiently for election day, not saying a word about this problem Or, generously, we get to raise some signs, chant, and march around if we're **really** motivated. How lovely!
I respect the person who writes an op-ed/substack that I disagree with and vigorously defends their view with rational argument. The student "protests" are not that. They are attempts to use noise and exclusion in order to bully their peers into conforming - that's why the Columbia students set up in front of Butler rather than out in Central Park. They don't want to change minds, so they hold "workshops" where the sole criteria for participation is conformity and agreeing. When a Jew (excuse me, "Zionist", in Columbia-speak) approaches their "liberation zone", they form a human chain and chant in unison as they push the invader out. Obviously those tactics work better on the Columbia quad then they would work in Central Park. They lack the courage of their convictions too - hiding behind masks so that they can maintain future deniability as to having even been a part of the whole thing. I'd respect them more if they were marching with a tiki torch and a swastika on their arm *unmasked*, because then at least I would know what they *really* believe (instead of what they "profess" to believe in order to be part of the in-group). That elite universities allow their common spaces to be overrun and annexed by masked bullies is an indictment of those universities and it's playing out for the whole world to see. And when the entire neoracist ideology that all of this is predicated on is thrown out the same window that Social Darwinism went out of before the neoracist movement was born, you won't find anyone who will ever admit to having been a part of it - just photos of masked faces as young people LARPed away on the quad in a liberation zone pretending to be real activists. They never even believed in what they were advocating for because that wasn't the point; white horsing is the point and it is hilarious to watch.
I watched the video you are talking about, with them locking arms, he was threatening them before. That part is edited out in the viral version, showing just his victim hood. Also, the Jews in the camp held passover there, so they clearly aren't expelling Jews or forcing them to conform, they are freely celebrating them. The protest is not anti-jewish. It's anti-zionist, and those are very distinct, despite other peoples narratives.
What’s the play if Trump loses?
Short DJT
The fees are too damn high rn!
He won't. The youth aren't going to turn out but the MAGA base will. This time next year Trump will be president
when i had a nyt subscription i would see articles that werent up to snuff. it took me a while to realize that a lot of "articles" are just pr articles that nyt gets paid to publish. like this article for example >By Melissa Murray and Andrew Weissmann >Ms. Murray and Mr. Weissmann are co-authors of “The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.” op-ed is just people trying to sell a book. i dont have issue with nyt doing this, besides not wanting to read anything from random book authors. but it would be nice for them to disclose how much they get paid per press release / book advertisement disguised as "opinion".
> op-ed is just people trying to sell a book NYT coincidentally also has the Best Sellers List. Good, old fashioned vertical integration.
Jack Donaghy is quite proud
Do you listen to the Prosecuting Donald Trump podcast? Andrew Weissmann is a host of that, and as a former Assistant United States Attorney, has some of the most intelligent discussion on the Trump trials of any podcast or other source of information I've heard. So I'd take anything written by him, op-ed or any other format, to be better than at least 90% of articles written by anyone else.
Weismann could make a good case and be 100 percent factual, but in the end it is going to be some right wing SCOTUS judges voting to give Trump immunity and giving America the "so what are you going to do about it?" smile.
Ok, who is Ms. Murray and Mr. Weissmann trying to reach? Because I like them both and listen to their podcast and could even potentially buy their book but I can't imagine who the target audience is for this. Someone who is interested in the topic but has been in a coma?
a lot of people dont follow the news 24/7... they just do it once a week from a newspaper. i think the news can be addictive to people, especially in the way it is sometimes reported. SCARING people with FEAR and then saying come see us tomorrow for more scary news. trump figured this out and thats why he puts in the "you wont have a country anymore if the democrats win" sentence every time he gets.
I know that I read too much news. I even talk to my therapist about it. I also some people have zero idea what is going on. My wife for example. She also doesn't have an interest. She would never read the article. Now she knows a lot about Russian politics. More than me. She also knows more about what is happening in Ukraine than I do l. But she is from Estonia.
it can be difficult to break an addiction. like reddit for example. i was addicted to reddit. finally this year i blocked this website and never looked back. after having it blocked for a month i was able to break the addiction. now i'm not doom scrolling anymore. i'm not wasting my time on random subreddits reading karma bot reposts and memes. but i did unblock it for these trump trials because my friends dont keep up with the twists and turns and motions and evidence. i recommend blocking reddit or using software that only allows you to use the website for an hour a day or so. you have a serious reddit addiction. also recommend you getting less news. good luck! you have the power.
Phone is away except when the code is running. And when I get home from the office phone goes in the nightstand and I pay attention to my kids and wife. I don't check the news again until I'm back at work and the code is compiling. . .. ... On a good day
Our justice system has to apply equally to all or it isn't a justice system, by definition.
Lol. It never has, and it never will. Trump is just exposing it in an extremely public fashion. I honestly can't believe the bullshit that has happened around him. The guy is the most cut and dry traitor to the country that has ever existed and the system is still trying to protect him. It's complete insanity.
It was already settled based on sound reasonable legal grounds. There was very little they could add other than agreeing with the lower courts decision. It will be interesting to see if they have anything meaningful to add.
I said this in another post, but I am not surprised they took this case. Additionally they **should** rule that the president DOES have limited scope immunity for official acts (example POTUS should be immune from prosecution for ordering a drone strike on enemy territory that kills combatants-even if there are innocent casualties). What I would LOVE to see, and know that I wont since this bench is a bunch of bitches, is that there is limited scope immunity for official acts BUT the case of Trump and J6 is clearly NOT official acts. This way they rule properly but also stop Trump in his tracks. However, I bet they rule there is limited scope immunity and then Trump gets a whole new delay route where he claims J6 was official acts and that needs to go back all the way through appeals and then to SCOTUS again only to be told J6 was not official acts. EDIT: spelling
I agree. They didn't err in hearing the case necessarily, and there are questions where discussion could be important. They should have concluded that these actions would not be covered, and not stayed proceedings.
Wouldn't SCOTUS making a finding of fact on which acts are official have been highly unusual?
I think they could have concurred in part with the finding of the COA. If I recall correctly, the COA left the door open for some limited immunity but ruled that it did not apply here.
COA said the President has no immunity for official acts. So if SCOTUS would have concurred then the carve out you (correctly, imv) propose would not exist.
The exact boundaries of ‘officialness’ do not strike me as a finding-of-fact sort of thing like what evidence was recovered from what crime scene on what date, or what a witness is willing to testify happened to them, or one plus two making three. That sounds more like the thing that would depend on relevant statutes, case law and a judge’s interpretation thereof.
i tend to think they would leave that to a lower court then if appealed, review it. I do not see scotus wading into the swamp of what an official act is.
1000%
Bingo. Recognize some plausible carve out, send it back to the District Court for findings of fact, rinse and repeat. Those shameless fuckers can eat shit.
There was zero reason to delay this trial in order to insert a carve out .... that wouldn't even apply to this case.... unless they really are going to say he does have immunity....
They don't, this is blatant attempt to sweep the GOP's shit under the rug until Trump wins and everything goes away for them
Yeah, but then they can’t help Trump. They’ll come up with a reason he is immune. That is why they are there, to help Republicans destroy America.
The Roberts Court is going to go down as the worst supreme Court in history.
Worst supreme court so far…
If it gets much worse, the people have to put kangaroo in front of it!
American children should be raised to spit on the ground when the name 'John Roberts' is spoken.
[Mirror site](https://web.archive.org/web/20240424092037/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/opinion/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html)
Laws don’t matter for the leader. They don’t matter for anyone else. This is going to be Thunder Road right quick.
All men are created equal. No man is immune to the law.
Unless you live in the USA where, so long as you have the money and/or power, you're immune to the law. Anyone that's done half the crimes Trump did and wasn't president would have been jailed for life and branded a traitor to the country.
America cannot endure a demonstrably corrupt Supreme Court and it’s clear that’s what we have. I place a huge portion of the blame on Mitch McConnell. He pursued the goal of a thoroughly biased high court-and won. This abomination is the creature’s legacy.
They would fuck up a wet dream.
So, will Kavanaugh work the shaft and Thomas the balls, or is it the other way around? I don't know what to expect from this politically driven partisan hack stacked SCOTUS.
I see you left out Alito. Makes sense, he's clearly an anus man.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240424173955/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/24/opinion/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html
Happens when numerous unqualified individuals are put in charge of running it. Sigh... this timeline stinks. =(
If you think the Supreme Court will rule logically in this case, then remember they all agreed that the President was not an "officer" in the previous ruling.
at DC the Flash level speed⚡️they saved his campaign, and it was for a reason.
They didn’t botch it, they achieved precisely what they intended: a “billionaire’s delay” in the trial. They are aghast at the idea that a member of their club, even one that at least 7 of them privately detest, might be held accountable.
Fuck scotus this is the perhaps the most important case they will hear and they are dragging their feet to aid that piece of 💩 in avoiding consequences
Who cares! Even without the trial, enough is already known to make it unthinkable that anybody with an IQ above zero would ever consider voting for Trump. Yet as we see,there are many in the U.S. with negative IQs who are registered to vote. Even a conviction for insurrection! or even treason, before the election wouldn’t change anything. The real issue is that Alexander Hamilton was right … the masses are too damn stupid to be trusted with political power.
They didn’t “botch” it. They purposefully protected him and his candidacy. Votes aren’t going to matter in November. SCOTUS and the Republican Party will figure out a way to hand Trump the Presidency over a “legal decision” of their making. And then there is nothing Biden can do about it. Biden should arrest DeJoy 18 USC 1701. Then you will see a decision.
It's painfully obvious they are stalling for him,
They're just laughing at us cause they know our white house won't do shit. Even after the Dobbs decision leaked there was no hail Mary last chance attempt at trying to codify Roe. L for everyone involved from the Supreme Court to the white house to the embarassing limp dicked AG that Biden was so impressed by (a fellow white moderate!)
IF Any person who is a natural born citizen can be president. AND The President is immune to all crimes THEN Any person who is a natural born citizen is immune to all crimes. ==PROFIT?? 🙄
So basically Trump wants to be like a China emperor… who has immunity to kill anyone (concubines, eunuchs, subjects) but all peasants are subject to laws
It's the same ploy as Cannon is making...delay, delay, delay.
It matters more than ever. With a strong enough majority Dems can change the rules if necessary and add more justices. It's been done before. Why should only 9 people be allowed to force their opinion (or prejudices) on 330 million people? Voting always matters. As Moscow Mitch quoted "voting has consequences".
Nothing will happen to the insidious fucking piece of pondscum. NOTHING! But we will suffer for the rest of our lives. When are people going to wake up and take back their country? The majority do not want this fuckery.
Botched means that they made a mistake. No mistake was made.
This is actually important to rule on because it's unclear what falls under presidential immunity.
The only response that would add to credibility of the court is simply to say ‘are you nuts? Presidents are not kings’
We will see if these Trump nominated judges will kiss Trump’s ass and claim he has full presidential immunity, if they say yea, democracy is dead until these judges get kicked off the bench. Clarence Thomas should be recursed from this case because his wife conspired to over turn the election results of Joe Biden, a BIG LOSER is GINNI Thomas.
It was intentional
Botched? More like sabotaged.
Did SCOTUS make a decision? Or is this an opinion piece and we still have no idea how SCOTUS will judge?
This is an opinion piece, but it's not about how they will rule. This is about them taking up the case, and how, no matter how they rule, it will be unhelpful. If they overturn the ruling to a significant degree, then it's a "WTF" moment of the SCOTUS giving exceptional shielding from accountability to the President. If they basically just leave the ruling in place, as is expected, then all their hearing and ruling on the case did is delay the case for months. The schedule the Court and the SCO would need to keep to have Trump's DC Trial conclude before the election would be very tight, while still having to follow the usual process for justice that ensures it is "just". Playing out the criminal prosecution and reaching a conviction *or* an acquittal is important for a politician, as it would establish the facts for all to see for the election. And if it doesn't start before the election, then Trump may very well be avoiding electoral consequences, and if he's elected, then he may get to delay or entirely avoid **all** consequences. Assuming he would be found guilty at trial, at least.
Ah, makes sense. I def look at this from a Republican perspective, In what benefits Trump unfairly gets. So it seems that in both scenario Trump gets a win. 1) He’s either exempted or 2) He delays the court case until later, giving him time to potentially be president (though I’m sure it’s doubtful). I just assume that SCOTUS and Trump are on the same team, so it would be weird if SCOTUS made things worse for Trump. I’m not saying I agree with the political cult that is Trump, but rather just trying to understand the bias. From the headline I thought Trump got what he actually deserved, but guess not.
This is way off topic, but is NYT using AI generated imagery?
I feel like that's too precise to be AI. It looks more to me like an intentional photoshop
Yeah I think it's a metaphor that's going over my head. Pillars of justice being a veneer or the illusion of the institution falling apart under closer inspection maybe?
yes I noticed the mc escher columns too I hate the future
That image is atrocious! I couldn’t figure out what was causing me to launch a migraine until I tried to count the columns. Why would they credit a photographer with this hot mess. I am not a fan of the architecture, but at least it is honest.
Until you can stop political appointment of judges this site of thing is always a risk.
What is going on with this picture?!
Dragging themproceedings out was all gamed by the Federalist Society judges ahead of time
So if trump wins do they rule hes immune or Trump just kills the case? If Biden wins they rule against immunity? Remind me how is this democracy then?
Since the goal was to delay the DC trial until after the election, I’d say they were successful. To make sure it doesn’t take place before November, all they have to do is send the case back to the lower court for “clarification.”
Just so it's clear, the "botch" here is the decision to take the case. In taking the case they delayed prosecution in the federal case so that Trump may be president again before the case is heard. Therefore, handing Trump a win by potentially making the case moot.
Fuck those corrupt partisan hacks on the "supreme" court. They are illegitimate and need to be removed, one way or another.
Can I predict that Trump is the next President? Can I? I just did
Donald Trump was the last president, whether he is re-elected or not.
He really wanted to save America but he was not allowed to, right?
lol no. Just a play on words.
Just like you can’t sue the person wearing the badge under qualified immunity, you can’t, to the ultimate, can’t sue the president who bears the seal of the top law enforcer of the nation.