Trump's Supreme Court To Hear Trump's Immunity Case

[ByteMe13]

Hearing in April, decision early summer, followed by pretrial motions, discovery etc. means a trial might not happen until fall or maybe even later.

More likely never

 

[stxjimmy]

Hearing in April, decision early summer, followed by pretrial motions, discovery etc. means a trial might not happen until fall or maybe even later.

As per the plan.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

As per the plan.

I doubt that was Jack Smith’s plan but criminal prosecutions often move slowly in the US.

 

[schism666]

I doubt that was Jack Smith’s plan but criminal prosecutions often move slowly in the US.

fyi - everyone in your family under 60 absolutely dreads your arrival at christmas dinner.

 

[jomar]

R v W was a disaster. That authority always belonged to the states. Once again the Supreme Court got it right

A 50 year disaster? But yes, good job SCOTUS! Their decision is killing women because of draconian laws states are making.

Meanwhile, transactional trump is counting on his SCOTUS team to thread that needle in his favor.

 

[stxjimmy]

I doubt that was Jack Smith’s plan but criminal prosecutions often move slowly in the US.

Wrong plan!

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Hearing in April, decision early summer, followed by pretrial motions, discovery etc. means a trial might not happen until fall or maybe even later.

If anyone has any doubt the current Supreme Court is corrupt, this ruling makes it obvious. The only reason they're even considering the question of Presidential immunity is to delay Donald Trump’s trial.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Yes, they tilted the scale in the 2000 election and are pulling a similar stunt this year.

Political hacks.

Interesting how the Supreme Court resolved Bush vs. Gore in 72 HOURS when time was of the essence to benefit the Republican party

....and now the Supreme Court has basically stalled criminal prosecutioin of a former Republican president by 4 MONTHS in order to delay his criminal trial until after the November elections.

 

[coati]

More than any other group, the Federalist Society understands that justice delayed is justice denied. The right-wing hacks on Supreme Court are simply taking a page out of Mitch McConnell's political book. They are solely interested in retaining power and have no interest in equal justice under the law.

 

[coati]

R v W was a disaster. That authority always belonged to the states. Once again the Supreme Court got it right

^^^Exact same argument made in the past regarding the rights of black people. We fought a civil war over that denial of human rights.

This time, the right-wing has taken on the majority of Americans with their denial of women's rights.

 

[RoryN]

Bump. The copycat thread shouldn't be the main one.

 

[SmokingFap]

It's about time. I guess the conservatives on the bench couldn't justify putting this off anymore.

 

[ByteMe13]

It's about time. I guess the conservatives on the bench couldn't justify putting this off anymore.

They won’t issue a ruling until they see who wins the election

 

[SmokingFap]

They won’t issue a ruling until they see who wins the election

God, I hope you're wrong. Would mean the end of justice in America.

 

[ll74]

Listening to arguments - the "textualists" on the court are being instructed by the special counsels lawyers on how immunity is not in the Constitution anywhere.

 

[ByteMe13]

God, I hope you're wrong. Would mean the end of justice in America.

Justice has seen its last gasp.

 

[RoryN]

Trump’s Lawyer Tries to Convince a Stunned Sotomayor: President Has Immunity to Order Assassinations of Rivals

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Trump lawyer John Sauer had a stunning exchange over presidential immunity when it comes to the assassination of political rivals during Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing.

Sauer had previously argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution in a stunning exchange at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

This topic came up again during the Supreme Court hearing:

SOTOMAYOR: Now I think. What? And then your, answer, below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?

Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.

SOTOMAYOR: He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain.

Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trum...s-immunity-to-order-assassinations-of-rivals/

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

R v W was a disaster. That authority always belonged to the states. Once again the Supreme Court got it right

And the same goes for interracial marriage, right?

 

[desecration]

Lawfare has created discontent:

Judge Points Out Biden DOJ's Hypocrisy, Double Standard

 

[IrezumiKiss]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1783516368283074665

 

[Bn2f]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1783516368283074665

I am conflicted on giving SCOTUS or the Honorable Justice Jackson any credit on this.
This is a great question but it is simply structured differently from what righteous and justice interested people have continually asked on trump for years. The answer is quite plain even to the dumbest of laypersons (lookin at you HisArpy).
So disappointed SCOTUS delayed and then decided to listen to this head scrathing, delay tactic of a nonsensical argument.

 

[jomar]

Trump’s Lawyer Tries to Convince a Stunned Sotomayor: President Has Immunity to Order Assassinations of Rivals

Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Trump lawyer John Sauer had a stunning exchange over presidential immunity when it comes to the assassination of political rivals during Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing.

Sauer had previously argued that under certain circumstances, a president could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival and not face prosecution in a stunning exchange at an appeal hearing on former President Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.

This topic came up again during the Supreme Court hearing:

SOTOMAYOR: Now I think. What? And then your, answer, below, I’m going to give you a chance to say if you stay by it, if the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or order someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts that for which he can get immunity?

Sauer: It would depend on the hypothetical. What we can see that could well be an official act.

SOTOMAYOR: He could. And why? Because he’s doing it for personal reasons. He’s not doing it. Like President Obama is alleged to have done it to protect the country from a terrorist. He’s doing it for personal gain. And isn’t that the nature of the allegations here, that he’s not doing them, doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility? He’s doing it for personal gain.

Sauer: I agree with that characterization of the indictment. And that confirms immunity, because the characterization is that there’s a series of official acts that were done for an honorable.

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trum...s-immunity-to-order-assassinations-of-rivals/

Saw that. He got schooled by Jackson too

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The biggest question before the court is: Does the precedent set in Nixon v Fitzgerald for civil suits apply to criminal prosecutions?

If SCOTUS rules that it does apply, the question that follows is: Do the acts Trump is charged with fall within the “outer perimeter” of his duties?

SCOTUS might rule on the latter question but I doubt they will. Even the 3 liberal justices have recently written in Trump v. Anderson case that the Court shouldn’t address more questions than it must be to decide a case. And it’s hard to imagine Roberts wanting the court to rule on anything other than it absolutely has to. Given that, there’s a good chance SCOTUS will remand the “outer perimeter” questions to the trial court for fact-finding and judgment.

If it plays out that way, the odds of delaying the trial past the November election will greatly increase. People on the left who want the court to follow the election calendar will be howling mad.

 

[ByteMe13]

The biggest question before the court is: Does the precedent set in Nixon v Fitzgerald for civil suits apply to criminal prosecutions?

If SCOTUS rules that it does apply, the question that follows is: Do the acts Trump is charged with fall within the “outer perimeter” of his duties?

SCOTUS might rule on the latter question but I doubt they will. Even the 3 liberal justices have recently written in Trump v. Anderson case that the Court shouldn’t address more questions than it must be to decide a case. And it’s hard to imagine Roberts wanting the court to rule on anything other than it absolutely has to. Given that, there’s a good chance SCOTUS will remand the “outer perimeter” questions to the trial court for fact-finding and judgment.

If it plays out that way, the odds of delaying the trial past the November election will greatly increase. People on the left who want the court to follow the election calendar will be howling mad.

There is zero chance that the DC case goes to trial before the election. Probably almost zero chance it ever goes to trial.

 

[ll74]

The biggest question before the court is: Does the precedent set in Nixon v Fitzgerald for civil suits apply to criminal prosecutions?

If SCOTUS rules that it does apply, the question that follows is: Do the acts Trump is charged with fall within the “outer perimeter” of his duties?

SCOTUS might rule on the latter question but I doubt they will. Even the 3 liberal justices have recently written in Trump v. Anderson case that the Court shouldn’t address more questions than it must be to decide a case. And it’s hard to imagine Roberts wanting the court to rule on anything other than it absolutely has to. Given that, there’s a good chance SCOTUS will remand the “outer perimeter” questions to the trial court for fact-finding and judgment.

If it plays out that way, the odds of delaying the trial past the November election will greatly increase. People on the left who want the court to follow the election calendar will be howling mad.

The reason the three justices dissented from the Anderson case was precisely because this court has already addressed more questions than it should have. There's no reason to believe they won't do so again, since they have already demonstrated that they aren't afraid of doing so.