Trump's Team 'Literally Popping Champagne' Over Supreme Court Taking Up Immunity Claim ( www.rollingstone.com )

The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department's election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

Vorticity ,

Elie Honig had an interesting take on this on his podcast. While I'm not sure that I completely agree with Elie, I feel like he tends to say things that, emotionally, I wish weren't true but that are very factually true.

Elie said that, as supreme court cases go, even important ones, this is a very accelerated timeline. They are asking both sides to prepare their arguments quickly but want to allow both sides to construct their arguments. He also suggested that this is exactly the kind of case that the supreme court should hear. It is an issue of first impression with dire impacts for our country, both in the short and long-term. He argued that this kind of decision shouldn't be left to an appeals court simply because it is simply too important. It requires the weight of the supreme court.

Bamboodpanda ,

Totally valid. That said, it's unreal that the question is even being asked. It was never a question before Trump. The fact that he is actually the GOP nominee when this is a question before SCOTUS because of him blows my mind.

iquanyin ,
@iquanyin@lemmy.world avatar

it’s what they were installed for. trump gave us a corrupt court that will last for decades, regardless of him not being in office.

Mastengwe ,

Remember though…. The propaganda machine is here actively telling everyone that Biden is the evil one.

LesserAbe ,

Get out of here. It's possible to criticize more than one thing. It's possible to say one thing is bad while recognizing another thing is worse.

fine_sandy_bottom ,

Sorry mate, that's just not how things work in the "information age".

plant ,

You're right, only one thing can be true at a time

TropicalDingdong ,

Democrats could have precluded this whole thing by finding him guilty as a result of the impeachment.

kmartburrito ,

This should have been a bipartisan conviction, but the Democrats were the only ones that cared for there to be accountability. But you know that most likely. It's common knowledge.

Ashyr ,

Every Democrat and some Republicans found him guilty. They needed 60 votes. They got 57 with 7 Republicans finding him guilty.

agentsquirrel ,

And even worse, after voting against impeachment, GOP majority leader McConnell stated Trump was responsible for 1/6.

Empricorn ,

finding him guilty as a result of the impeachment.

What does this mean, like literally? Are you a troll, or gaslighting? Every single non-Republican did vote that DJT was guilty, as part of the impeachment process.

Republicans literally saved him from being removed from office, yet somehow Democrats are to blame in that trial? Your worldview of globally-documented historic events is wild...

OldWoodFrame ,

Call me old fashioned but it seems like a flaw in the legal system if it takes slightly longer than one 4-year presidential term to prosecute someone for interference in a presidential election.

frezik ,

Yes, very. Federal judges have huge case loads, and expanding the size of the federal bench would be one way to fix that. At least doubling it, and quite possibly doubling it again.

Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

TranscendentalEmpire ,

Democrats haven't touched this because they're spineless and don't want to be seen to be stuffing the bench after Republicans already stuffed the bench.

I don't even know if it's just that they're spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don't really mind a conservative judicial system.

The vast majority of people in Congress are affluent white people, and they really have nothing to gain by replacing a conservative judge with a liberal one. A conservative judicial system isn't going to stop them from leaving the country for an abortion, or change what the private schools teach their children. While a liberal judge may increase their taxes, make it harder to accept bribes, or even ruin their businesses by implementing labor laws.

I just don't really see anything that would really motivate anyone in Congress to enact a more fair judicial system.

Signtist ,
@Signtist@lemm.ee avatar

Yeah, it seems to me that Democrats are in a pretty nice position for themselves - they can claim to be for the people, while lamenting that they're unable to make the big changes that the people want due to conservatives holding them back. If they didn't have that excuse, they might actually need to coordinate those changes, which they likely don't want to do.

Burn_The_Right ,

That's certainly true for the neoliberals, who are the majority of the DNC. Unfortunately, we don't have a viable progressive party. We have a conservative party and a more conservative party.

dejected_warp_core ,

I don’t even know if it’s just that they’re spineless. Part of me thinks that the majority of people in Congress don’t really mind a conservative judicial system.

Sadly, I think you're right. Occams razor would suggest that's what we're seeing here. IMO, it's far more likely that politicians are being self-serving (power corrupts) than being a bunch of shrinking violets in circumstances where it hurts everyone else.

Dadifer ,

Didn't the turtle Mitch refuse to fill hundreds of members of the federal judiciary?

frezik ,

Yes, that's exactly why Trump was able to fill so many. His administration was very slow to fill vacancies at other federal agencies, but not judges. Shows exactly where they had their priorities.

nutsack ,

he's about to win and make the country permanently more autocratic

Burn_The_Right ,

The real screw up here was appointing a fucking conservative as attorney general.

Never, ever show kindness to conservatives. Politeness and professionalism? Sure. But a conservative sees kindness as a weakness to exploit. That is just who they are at their core.

Reaching across the aisle by appointing Merrick Garland was an extremely stupid move that could cost us our democracy.

kandoh ,

Garland was gonna let him skate. It wasn't until he refused to give back the classified documents that he crossed the line and Garland have the go-ahead to prosecute him for that. And once you've given permission to prosecute an ex-president for one thing, you can't tell the other prosecutors who want to nail him for other crimes 'no'.

Garland should never have been picked as AG. He's literally the guy democrats pick when they want to tell Republicans "Hey, we see you, we love you, and you have nothing to worry about from us. So please just be normal 💕"

reverendsteveii ,

it seems like a flaw in the legal system

Oh no, this is exactly how it's designed. The rich are above the law.

Blue_Morpho ,

Charles Manson never personally murdered anyone. There was no video of the crime. It took 2 years from the day his cult murdered people to Manson being sentenced to jail for life.

3 years later after a live televised insurrection and not even a trial.

vraylle ,
@vraylle@kbin.social avatar

Mostly likely, the conservative majority will affirm the lower court ruling and agree that the president doesn't have that sort of immunity. But they can do so late enough to kill the case, which is the goal here.

TruthAintEasy , (edited )
@TruthAintEasy@kbin.social avatar

Yea give presidents immunity, Biden can use it exactly once, and then cancel it all together

Edit spelling

blazeknave ,

Oh... Wait.. why have I neither thought nor read this? That's... Smart.

ItsAFake ,
@ItsAFake@lemmus.org avatar

“Literally popping champagne right now,”

Is that what people call snorting coke now?

protist ,

Of note, this has nothing to do with the $450,000,000 and $83,000,000 bonds he needs to put up very soon

pezhore ,
@pezhore@lemmy.ml avatar

It doesn't matter. He can hold off on liquidation until November and if he wins, (which would mean there's a strong chance the Senate flips), have his cronies pass a, " lol god emperors don't pay for summary judgements" bill.

dhork ,

He wouldn't even need to do that. He would just need to sell a few of those Top Secret documents to MBS, and all of a sudden the Trump Org has another 2 billion worth of business in Saudi Arabia

Telorand ,

No he can't. The Special Monitor overseeing his assets and watching his books has the authority to start seizing assets until he's satisfied the monetary requirements to appeal, and she can do that right now. And, there's interest running on the meter until he does.

He's gonna pay whether he likes it or not.

Tyfud ,

Yes he can. Unfortunately. We all get to watch this birth of a dictator unfold in slow motion if Trump wins.

Telorand ,

How? Given the powers that the Special Monitor has, how could he possibly avoid paying?

RNC certainly doesn't seem like a likely option right now, and nobody else has ponied up the money.

Subverb ,

He can pardon himself. And he will.

SinningStromgald ,

I thought both were state charges and only federal charges could be pardoned?

Telorand ,

That's correct. Only the NY Governor can pardon state crimes in NY

Telorand ,

These are state crimes. He can't pardon himself from them.

ETA: I was referring to the conversation context, which is his financial crimes, not the article, which are federal crimes.

RunningInRVA ,

You cannot pardon a judgement in a civil case.

Yearly1845 ,

bro people have been saying that dump will face the consequences of his actions for like seven years now. You'll excuse us if we're tired of playing this dance yet again.

Telorand ,

I always figured the Jan 6 ones were a long shot, but these other two cases are done. He's going to have to pay, and he can't get an appeal unless he pays, thanks to NY law.

That's why it's different from the federal ones.

ETA: and he can't just not pay, because the Special Monitor has a court-ordered obligation to ensure he pays his court debts. She'll just seize his assets, which she has the power to do.

Yearly1845 ,

"But this time it's different"!

I'll believe it when I see it.

Telorand ,

It is different, because he's not the one with the power over his finances. Having a court-appointed Special Monitor who oversees every financial transaction is not remotely the same as just expecting him to pay out of common decency (which he doesn't have). Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

If he becomes dictator, of course it won't matter, but that's a future possibility, not a current reality.

Yearly1845 ,

see? It's happening again. Donnie gets yet another pause, and then he'll get another, and another, until he's president and makes the whole thing go away. Delay, delay, delay, obstruct, pause, file useless motions that each need to be deliberated before they can be overturned, etc. etc.

It doesn't matter that there's a special monitor. Nothing matters. Dump won't face any consequences; It's the one thing he's good at.

Telorand ,

That's called a slippery slope fallacy. This reduction of the bond fucking sucks, but he has 10 days to pay it (and we'll see if he does), and that doesn't ultimately mean he's off the hook.

I get your cynicism, but that does not justify your position that he's going to ultimately escape, unless you are a legal expert and know more than the other legal experts.

It's possible (though not likely) the final amount will be reduced by the appellate court, but Judge Engoron's behavior and judgement was above board. Trump will not escape unscathed, regardless.

This case isn't some goofy reading of the Constitution to justify why churches can revive segregation. It's a standard business fraud case, and the facts speak for themselves.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

okay what has he seized so far? Trump's already stated he's not paying that amount

Telorand ,

I don't know what she has seized. But that doesn't mean she hasn't or won't. It just means we don't know.

But it doesn't matter what Trump has said publicly, because he's obligated to pay, and it's not just up to him or his accountants whether he does.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

You're operating under the reasonable logic of how this is supposed to work. But nothings gone how it's supposed to work for Trump. He's had a decade of very public crime and been found guilty in several different ways, but has so far not had any consequences enforced. guilty of rape, tax fraud, defamation, campaign finance violations, and bribery, and so far not a penny, much less jail time.

Telorand ,

I would argue that the two NY cases have gone exactly as you'd expect. Nothing has happened in them that was particularly unusual. Typical rape case + defamation and a corporate fraud case. All already with judgments.

And as far as collections go, it's not like buying groceries. He doesn't have to pay the full amount all at once (and probably can't). He does have to front the money if he wants to appeal, though, and all he's done is file for one. They won't take it up until he's paid up.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

typical rape case???

Telorand ,

Yes. The facts and conduct of the trial were typical, ordinary. I was not saying that rape is typical.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

How many rape cases have you heard of involving no jail time?

Telorand , (edited )

How many rape cases have you heard of that get special, one-time grace periods to revisit 30 years later?

ETA: this was not a criminal rape trial, it was a civil one. Jail time was never an option.

guacupado ,

and she can do that right now.

If she hasn't, then she won't. We all know what could and should happen, and we all know none of it has.

Telorand ,

And you got your law degree from where, exactly?

homesnatch ,

She can do that until March 25th, and she will act as soon as she is able to.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

This judgment has far more frightening implications, if the president is above the law.

snekerpimp ,

And we slip even closer to fascism

the_post_of_tom_joad ,

What if i told you..

Morpheusface

We are already there?

I'm not being edgy. Let's review the 14 signs:

The 14 characteristics are:

  • Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

    Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

  • Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

    Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

  • Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

    The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

  • Supremacy of the Military

    Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

  • Rampant Sexism

    The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

  • Controlled Mass Media

    Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

  • Obsession with National Security

    Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

  • Religion and Government are Intertwined

    Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

  • Corporate Power is Protected

    The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

  • Labor Power is Suppressed

    Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

  • Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

    Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

  • Obsession with Crime and Punishment

    Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

  • Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

    Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

  • Fraudulent Elections

    Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I expect pushback on this, simply because it is absolutely terrifying and worse? I don't know what to do other than try and point this out to people. Maybe someone somewhere knows a way outta this mess.

It's not coming, it's here friends, the future is today. Fascism isn't binary. It's not yes/no, it's analog, the dial slowly turned up. And like the proverbial boiling frog, if you're expecting there to be a flashing sign, one giant moment that signals to everyone yes, yes now we are here, this is fascism?

It walks the streets outside your home, in the hallways of your building. It is just outside your door, getting ready to knock on someones. Will you know it before they knock on yours?

Restaldt ,

Aye the seeds of fascism have already sprouted weeds

Buffalox ,

Absolutely no doubt the Republicans are a bunch of fascists. But they don't have full control yet.

the_post_of_tom_joad , (edited )

I don't play party politics my friend. I am saying this is the way the nation is currently running. What i mean is to say that the country, despite (as you say) the Republicans not having ' full control', that this is our country, now. My point is fascism, as defined in these 14, is here. Now. Setting aside party politics (gamified by our corrupted media) where each "news company" plays different flavors of

Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

the "news" is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser? Can't you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

Today, when you woke up, it was under the flag of a fascist nation.

Buffalox ,

Unfortunately you are more right than wrong. 😐

Eldritch ,
@Eldritch@lemmy.world avatar

the "news" is constantly pitting one half of the citizenry against the other. How often have you been cajoled by them to consider your fellow citizens lesser?

As much as I have disdain for all corporate media. That isn't something the non overtly conservative media does. Whether it's to service their false narrative of turning everything into a horse race for ratings. Or actual journalistic integrity. I can't say, though my money is on the former.

Can't you hear them cooing in your ear to dismiss all critisism of your party as treasonous? Un-american?

Nope. I definitely have heard individuals wound up about this election get overly concerned about primary shenanigans on the Democratic side. The corporate media however often focuses on false criticisms still. Out of some misguided need to APPEAR fair and balanced . Rather than be succinct and honest.

the_post_of_tom_joad , (edited )

I would like you to be my ally, and in fact you are. Our light disagreement here is (in my opinion) that you are still holding on to the idea that while propaganda exists, it isn't something you personally consume. That while fascism exists and is growing, it is not at all on the side you are on. That the things you believe, you believe because you are informed, and that you disagree with others because they are not.

I would like you to consider the possibility that you are subject to lies and propaganda. That the things you are told, the people you believe? Might be lying to your face. Might be twisting things juuust enough for your compliance and support. Is that not possible?

I really don't want to push any harder than this because i desire your open mind above all else. But my opinion is you're far too quick to dismiss other's opinions as uninformed or plain wrong, and i would like that part of you to change.

bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

you're doing very good work.

RIPandTERROR ,
@RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works avatar

Masterful execution of interpersonal communication and outreach. Your wording is inspiring.

Eldritch ,
@Eldritch@lemmy.world avatar

I'm not a Democrat. Nor am I Republican. Nor am I a member of any major American party. Propaganda does exist everywhere. But I think what you're not recognizing is that you are subject to it as much as anyone else. And as such, have been a bit radicalized.

I do not dispute that the American Republican party has been aspirationally and openly fascist for much of the last 100 years. And I do not dispute that the Democratic party since at least the 1980s has been far too comfortable and enabling of it. Nor do I dispute that America has committed genocide throughout its history. Including against my ancestors. Easily right up until the late 1970s early 1980s at minimum. I do not dispute that America at the behest of the wealthy and industrialists have overthrown democratic governments. Puting authoritarian/fascistic dictators in place.

But I also acknowledge that for all their many faults. And there are many. That even though they don't do enough to push back. That many of the morons still opining openly about the "loss of bipartisanship". Wanting to work with Republicans. Despite Republicans basically saying fuck you to their face. That there is a difference between rudderless spinelessness, and fascism. I acknowledge that for all the horrible positions Biden has taken in his career. That he has actually genuinely grown and tried to make amends. Remember, he's a big part of why we have marriage equality. Despite Obama saying he was against. I'm not going to defend the stupid liberal brained things Biden continues to do. I understand why Biden was still trying to work with Israel. And it wasn't to support genocide. Despite it being truly, obviously, stupid.

However I acknowledge above all. That anyone who portrays Democrats as fascists, or the same as the Republican party. That screeches ignorant teenage edge lord slogans like "genocide joe". Aren't interested in solutions. Aren't interested in reaching people. Fully focused on farming drama and making enemies. Rather than making hard decisions, working to save lives.

4grams ,
@4grams@awful.systems avatar

no, but they have no problem with cheating and the branch of government that would hold them responsible when they do, just showed their hand. I don't think it's going to be easy for them to steal it, but I don't think there will be much in the way of them trying every trick they have.

fadingembers ,
@fadingembers@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

If you're stranded in a red state, they already do

OneWomanCreamTeam ,
@OneWomanCreamTeam@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar
bigMouthCommie ,
@bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social avatar

waitwaitwait, you mean accusing our political opponents of being traitors isn't democracy? well what if we just want to criminalize their political activity and throw em in jail? or accuse them of working with foreign interests? surely, it's not fascism all the way down: the corporate media insists fascism can't be here until the next election!

Asafum ,

Will you know it before they knock on yours?

The State: I am the one who knocks!

https://feddit.nl/pictrs/image/134fc975-6ed1-4301-854b-860d5432fd18.jpeg

Schmoo ,
@Schmoo@slrpnk.net avatar

Fascism isn't binary. It's not yes/no, it's analog, the dial slowly turned up.

My biggest concern is that we're crossing a point of no return from which there is no way back except for violent overthrow of the regime. My biggest fear is that we've already crossed it.

the_post_of_tom_joad ,

My biggest fear is that we’ve already crossed it.

...mine too. I am coming to grips with what i increasingly believe is...yes, we have. And i am not ready, so very not ready to accept what that actually might mean. I said this slightly differently earlier, but part of my problem, now that I'm on that road to acceptance, is trying to find some direction, some way to find agency. And to share that agency I've found (it must exist! It must! I must find it!) with other people who would listen. But i am adrift. I hate this feeling of fearful helplessness. I would wish it on no one. But all I've got is what i see right now, and the faith that someone out there smarter than me has an answer we can all share

vikingqueef ,
@vikingqueef@lemmy.world avatar

the monopoly on violence that is reserved for the state is what drives that feeling of fearful helplessness. there are no right and easy answers because they have been labeled wrong. i will not advocate for violence but i will point out that we are not allowed to carry out violence against the state or its infrastructure.

if you have been the victim of repeated physical abuse and had the opportunity to physically fight back and took it, then you know how powerful that feeling after is, when you realize that you actually do have power.

guacupado ,

People forgetting we didn't win the revolution through voting.

Manos ,

They don't have the money for champagne.

dhork ,

Sure they do, the RNC is likely buying it.

topinambour_rex ,
@topinambour_rex@lemmy.world avatar

The RNC has only 8.7 millions in bank.

RestrictedAccount ,

Your Grandma just sent him $50

iAmTheTot ,
@iAmTheTot@kbin.social avatar

I don't know how much you think champagne costs, but it's significantly less than 8.7 million dollars.

ivanafterall ,
@ivanafterall@kbin.social avatar

Even on a lower $4.35 million budget, why spend half of your money on a bottle of champagne?

frezik , (edited )

Do they even have enough to pay for the national convention this year?

Edit: according to this:

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2016/09/rnc-covered-its-convention-costs-but-some-who-gave-in-2012-stayed-away/

Their fundraising in 2016 netted $65.7M to cover RNC costs. This could get interesting.

RamblingPanda ,

It's piss anyway, he's into that.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president.

If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

For months, Trump’s lawyers expected the federal trial to start this summer, and they have actively prepared for that scenario.

During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

The court disagreed, unanimously rejecting Trump’s immunity claim earlier this month.


The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 129 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Itsamelemmy ,

During oral arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals in January, the former president’s lawyers argued that presidential immunity should cover everything, even having political rivals assassinated.

Maybe Biden should take one for the country. You know the court would rule against absolute immunity for something Biden did. And he's old enough, that he probably wouldn't even see jail. No more Trump, no question as to if the president is above the law. Win win.

fluxion ,

The second they rule in Trump's favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

agentsquirrel ,

The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

Well, that's the thing, they won't rule in Trump's favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump's case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn't taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There's no legal support at all for Trump's claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.

NightAuthor ,

And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

RGB3x3 ,

You know how parents would say "because I said so" without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?

That's the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Somehow the founders didn't see that as being a problem.

NightAuthor ,

I think impeachment was supposed to be a check on their powers, but that never happens.

SinningStromgald ,

No one wanted to "politicize" impeachment so Congress just played ball with the Supreme Court and would reword laws till the current batch of justices gave a thumbs up. Or wait for the slant of the court to change and try again. This has, of course, put us in our current predicament. We should be watching the impeachment proceedings for Alito and Thomas, at the very least, right now, but instead we are going to see the hubby of an insurrectionist rule on wether insurrection is okay or not if a sitting president does it. All while that justice and another pocket millions in "gifts" from right wing fascist Nazis.

agentsquirrel ,

And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

Nothing, other than wanting to have an historically favorable legacy. But ignoring that, despite Alito and Thomas being unabashed GOP operatives, ruling in favor of immunity would be a stretch for even them. Undoubtedly all the justices realize that if they affirm presidential immunity for life, a president can Seal Team Six one or all of the justices, on a whim. A ruling to affirm immunity would neutralize the power of the court, something an even unethical and selfish justice would want to prevent.

NightAuthor ,

But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

My gut says yes, they’re smart, some of them just have questionable ethics.

agentsquirrel ,

But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

Absolutely. One thing I've learned over the years is that intelligence and ethics are two totally separate qualities. I've listened to SCOTUS televised proceedings a few times and the level of mastery of the law and history, and the lines of thinking and arguments are quite stunning. I say this equally of both the conservative and liberal members of the court. But that's not to say they don't steer the arguments and decisions in a way that aligns with their ideology and/or their political allies.

agentsquirrel ,

Maybe Biden should take one for the country

At the very least (and less gory of an outcome) Biden should assemble Seal Team Six in the Oval Office and publicize it. The media and pundits will run with it and it will put Trump, MAGA, and the conservative "think tanks" in a tizzy over the immunity claims, and perhaps make the conservative SCOTUS justices (who are going to ultimately rule against Trump anyways, after enough of a delay to torpedo the federal charge trials) squirm behind close doors. But Biden and the Democrats won't do it, because they're always taking the high road and won't use the media to their advantage, even when democracy is in the balance.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • kamenrider
  • pixo
  • jeremy
  • Lexington
  • cragsand
  • mead
  • RetroGamingNetwork
  • MidnightClan
  • neondivide
  • xyz
  • PowerRangers
  • AnarchoCapitalism
  • WatchParties
  • WarhammerFantasy
  • supersentai
  • Rutgers
  • Teensy
  • itdept
  • space_engine
  • steinbach
  • learnviet
  • bjj
  • loren
  • AgeRegression
  • khanate
  • mauerstrassenwetten
  • electropalaeography
  • Mordhau
  • All magazines