Helps to have appointed 3 justices, I'm guessing.
by BigBadBrewer (2024-02-28 18:32:04)
Edited on 2024-02-28 18:36:18

In reply to: The Supreme Court has granted cert on presidential immunity  posted by sprack

Cannot Reply Return to Political

Why is this taking place in April when it was very recently argued? Maybe some justices have nice vacations planned and don't want to reschedule. I'm guessing zero chance any justice recuses.

Not to bang the drum on he lost the popular vote... or that analysis shows that roughly 107k votes swang the election in 3 states... but damn.



Swang? *
by Milhouse  (2024-02-29 16:21:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Pootie Tang say swag swag. *
by Giggity_Giggity  (2024-02-29 22:09:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I bet at least 2 of the 3 rule against him. *
by manofdillon  (2024-02-28 19:21:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

How can it be anything other than 9-0? *
by IAND75  (2024-02-28 20:37:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I hope it is.
by manofdillon  (2024-02-28 22:26:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

And think it might be. But over the last 3 terms, the court has really divided into 3 groups of 3. You have the liberals, the institutionalist conservatives (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and the 3 consequences be damned conservatives (Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas). Of course these aren’t hard and fast groupings (see Gorsuch in Bostock), but they’ve tended to stick together. I don’t think anyone in the first 2 groups will rule in Trump’s favor. I hope the third group comes along as well, and if I had to bet on it I’d say they will, but we’ll see.

Timing is the issue. Accept it in December or accept the
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 21:20:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

current decision. Hearing in late April, decision by end of June? We know the Court can accelerate things -- Bush v Gore took almost no time.

The court hasn't exactly been earning our trust lately with unreported, excessive gifts and lack of recusals.

Hasn't the Trump political experience been a complete subversion of norms and expectations?

If Thomas is a lone dissenter he will lose all crediblity *
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 21:06:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I’m worried Alito might join him
by manofdillon  (2024-02-28 22:22:01)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I’d bet on 9-0 or 7-2.

I imagine they want it resolved before nomination/election
by El Kabong  (2024-02-28 18:37:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

And I don't see why it matters who appointed them, it's not like he can reach out and have them removed.

Think about how many judges nominated by (R) Presidents ruled against conservative positions in the past.
This is farce playing out in real time.
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 18:50:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

"""
The court’s brief order said the court will decide 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.”
"""

What part of this is official acts? The conduct Trump is accused of was way outside any immunity for official acts the Constitution might/does confer.

So SCOTUS should ignore important questions? *
by airborneirish  (2024-02-28 21:07:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

When they have been sufficiently addressed, yes. *
by BigBadBrewer  (2024-02-28 21:29:18)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

There are two possible reasons why they took the case
by wpkirish  (2024-02-29 09:25:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

1. They took the case because they think it is important they affirm the appellate court decision before the trial in order to remove the abilty of Trump to argue it is going to be overturned on appeal. I think affirming the appellate court would do the same but they may feel differently.

2. The thing the appellate court ruled incorrectly and intend to overturn the decisoin and give Trump the get out of free card he seeks.

I guess there is a third possibility which would be they are delaying it to avoid the trial happening before the election which is essentially a win for Trump. If they uphold the appellate court decision without signiifciant changes, granting cert will have been a mistake in my opinion.
Immunity is also a claim in the classified docs case. *
by Kbyrnes  (2024-02-29 15:30:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Seems like it was already likely that one would not go to
by wpkirish  (2024-02-29 19:26:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

trial before the election.