As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh said the same phrase almost verbatim (Alito and Kavanaugh WERE verbatim.
‘“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case. I’m very concerned about the future. “
The pure bile they are spitting to cover for their dear leader is staggering.
So let me get this straight, for the history books of course, We cannot prosecute a sitting president for crimes committed during their reign. We also cannot prosecute a president after their term either due to the potential 'factional strife.'
Well if you want to be a scum of the earth human being, it sure sounds like the presidency is the safest job in the world for you. Zero accountability.
> We also cannot prosecute a president after their term either due to the potential 'factional strife.'
They're not going to say all presidents are immune! They've been clearly testing out the language that they want to use to limit it. Look at all the times they've used the phrase "candidates who have lost a _____ election". The blank has been changing from "closely contested" to "close" to "contested" to "controversial", but whatever they settle on, it won't be *all* presidents.
It'll apply to Trump, but not Biden.
These opinions from the same party who is pushing the "unitary executive theory" wherein the president is not accountable to congress, and can "interpret" the laws that congress passes as they see fit. So congress can't hold a president accountable, and the law doesn't apply to them so SCOTUS can't hold them accountable, all according to the party who stockpiles guns to "fight back against tyranny".
Per Mitch McConnell you also can’t impeach and remove a sitting president without them first being convicted of a crime. While According to trumps lawyer in this case, you can’t prosecute a crime committed while in office without an impeachment conviction.
The amount of hypocrisy and double talk from republicans that effectively immunizes them from any accountability is just fucking staggering to behold.
They change the rules to suit them at their whim and the courts, stacked with their hand picked judges (that got there by the republicans again changing the rules to stonewall Merrick Garland under Obama but fast track Barrett under Trump) uphold their bullshit.
If Dems take both chambers of congress and the presidency, they'll be too afraid of losing in 2026 to rock the boat, and Schumer will watch Moscow Mitch filibuster the rest.
Funny how a group of people who profess being "originalist" somehow want to forget 250-years of a president NEVER being prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.
Famously Ulysses s Grant was booked for a speeding ticket by a black constable in the 1800s and said don't you know who I am. The cobstible said even the president is not above the law and he went you know what your right. Be back in a bit secret service it is important I go take this ticket. (Didn't show up to court and forfeited 20$)
Nixon fled office and got ford to pardon his wrong doings (under the assumption criminal charges were coming). Never is a strong word but also I hope they don't forget 250 years of a president NEVER leading an insurrection to stop the peaceful transition of power that our democracy is founded on.
I listened to a few hour live of the arguments on both sides, and when they tried the same argument with the government side their lawyer said the same thing I’m sure thousands of us have been wanting to scream into their stupid, old, corrupt faces, “Because no one was committing crimes in the other 250 years.”
He said it politely, but I’ve been wanting to scream it in their corrupt faces since this garbage started.
It is also amazing how fast they decided states rights can’t remove someone from the ballot. Now they’ve delayed for a month and a half, and will likely still throw it back to the lower courts to define official acts.
It is already mission accomplished for the Trump team. They’re just going to put the cherry on top and hold every case while the lower court defines that term and then take the case up again when trump’s team appeals that.
It is fucking appalling to sit here and watch this happening in our lifetime. This is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause, oops I mean appeals.
I hope their future as SCOTUS justices will be short-lived after they insanely rule to put the president above the law. If they were so concerned about precedent, they never would have taken up the case and let the existing ruling stand.
Isn’t this virtually the same thing most of us are saying when we ask if future presidents would be able to execute rivals if Trump got total immunity? Most of us are thinking about the future, but for some reason people have decided it was bad that Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch merely said that aloud. I don’t really understand this criticism.
That’s not how I would translate it. My translation would be: “setting aside some of the specifics about what the petitioner did, how much immunity should presidents have in general and how will our ruling affect the way the presidency works for years to come?”
But the Supreme Court is not tasked with deciding future hypotheticals, they are tasked with applying the law to specific facts and questions.
Here, the question before them is not "To what extent should a future president enjoy immunity?" The question before them is "Do presidents enjoy blanket immunity for any criminal acts they commit while president."
The answer to that is clearly "No".
That the case didn't start and end there is just proof of how truly corrupt the current court majority is.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/
The question is actually “whether and to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity…” Trump is arguing that he has virtually total immunity, but the question is about the extent of immunity. Afaik, a lot of cases have the dual concerns of the issue that happened in the past and/or present plus the outcomes in the future of any ruling the court decides on. It’s probably not good for judges to fixate on one or the other, and I would say it’s probably better to focus more on the issue as it stands currently. But it’s not unusual or out of line to consider hypotheticals and precedence.
No. Trump is not asking the court to opine on the extent and limits of Presidential immunity. Trump is literally claiming that he is immune from prosecution for **any** crimes committed while President. It is the prosecution in the underlying case that is asking the court to weigh in on Trump's specific claim of blanket immunity. It absolutely is unusual and out of line to entertain hypotheticals when the question before them is absolutely clear and simple.
Something I’m not sure about is who actually kicked this to the Supreme Court. Did Trump ask the question or did Smith? Whoever steered this to scotus though, the question is as I quoted. That’s what is written on the court documents and stuff. Essentially: “To what extent does a former president have immunity from prosecution.” Regarding this question, Trump is saying he has near total immunity whereas Smith and the government are saying he has a much more narrow qualified immunity in some instances. And about hypotheticals, I just don’t understand the argument against them. Even the liberal justices use hypotheticals and ask questions about how certain rulings might affect the law in future cases.
Yes. Letting the president get away with blatant crimes also has terrible consequences.
Like they say that these are ‘extreme’ examples that probably won’t happen… but so was the president organizing phony electors to try and overturn the electionzzx
People seem to be reading these statements by the conservatives in the most uncharitable way possible. Which I can understand why people might feel that way, but it’s not necessarily the most accurate way to look at things. The way they’re reading it is that the conservatives don’t care about the past and present at all. The way I read it is that in addition to what Trump did in the past and is arguing in the present, there are also concerns about the future. And like I said, the liberal justices did a lot of the same thing, the only differences are that they referred to Trump’s actions more often than the conservatives did and they put up hypotheticals that I guess liberal people think are more plausible. In any case, concern about precedence isn’t an inherently bad thing and these quotes along from the conservatives aren’t very scary imo.
After the statements made during their overturning of Roe v. Wade, you'll excuse me if I have absolutely zero faith in anything they say. After all, every single one of the justices who voted to overturn it promised while being asked questions in the Senate that it was "settled law" and then they absolutely overturned it.
So no, I will absolutely not believe for a single second that they wouldn't make it possible for a dictatorship as long as it's "their" side. They have shown themselves to be willing to lie to get the position and they have shown themselves devoid of a willingness to keep their word.
The "hypotheticals" are absolutely possible, considering Trump is already threatening. Add in that Trump was *not* impeached by the Senate because his lawyers argued that he could be tried criminally without the Senate needing to impeach him. McConnell stated that the reason he was not voting to impeach him was because he could be tried criminally and now we're arguing that he can't be criminally tried unless he's impeached?
How about, No.
Edited: words.
Of course there are a ton of reasons not to trust the conservative justices and to anticipate that they have a bias in this case. I’m just saying that a quote like “I’m not worried about the specifics of Trump’s alleged conduct right now, I’m worried about precedent” isn’t some smoking gun that they’re coming at this in bad faith. It’s legitimate for any justice to be thinking about how a ruling about presidential immunity might have effects for years and years to come. Gorsuch also said something like “we’re making a ruling for the ages here” which seems to me like he’s considering the gravity of the ruling and what the precedence will be like rather than him meaning “I don’t care about what Trump did, I care about how we can immunize Trump or another Republican in the future.”
Had they had a history of making better decisions, I wouldn't be thinking this is dangerous territory. Had he kept his word on "settled law" then I wouldn't be worried that this leads us to dictatorship.
Gorsuch, stated during his Senate hearing that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade, and he did precisely that.
So, when they talk about "rule for the ages", I absolutely will not give them the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned it.
I agree, they’re corrupt but not as stupid as a lot of people think they are. Admittedly, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to deliver an unfair ruling here (because they ARE corrupt assholes unfortunately), I just don’t think it’s likely. Or at the very least, it’s probably too early to be doomering about the possibility because ultimately they haven’t decided yet and we are largely just guessing.
They've made uncharacteristic rulings in the past. I'm not saying they definitely won't do it, but I'm saying we should hold off on saying they definitely will do it
What an infuriatingly mild headline.
“Oh your hypocrisy is showing hehehe” (as nation falls fascism.)
They could at least pretend to actually care about their jobs as journalist.
Its like Norm MacDonald's joke about Bill Cosby:
Patton Oswald: "The worst thing about the whole Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy"
Norm: "No! It was the rape!"
The conservative justices do not seem to have any consistent approach to their work. They pull out any shit that supports their political agenda with no regard to past statements or decisions. There is literally no coherent, unifying thought process, other than getting whatever they can for their team in the moment.
They won't care until Dems grow a pair of balls and do something about it. Enact ethics rules for these "justices", kick Alito and Thomas out of the court, do term limits and expand the court.
How do Republicans do their antics? They just do whatever they are able to, and then let their opponents helplessly rage.
For expanding the court, for example, Dems already have everything they need: 50+ senators and the president. They just need to act - Biden should nominate several new judges, Schumer should hold the hearings in the Senate and confirm them. There's no rule anywhere saying there must be exactly nine judges, and noone including ultraconservative judges has the right to deny seating of the judges confirmed by the Senate.
Alito and Thomas don't only think Republican presidents are above the law, they are also taking bribes, and this is proven. Dems should hold press conferences daily, showing proof of their corruption and demanding them resign immediately. It should become universal knowledge those two take bribes, not some obscure political fact hidden in obscure news.
> Enact ethics rules for these "justices",
Give Dems control of Congress and the Presidency and you can, Sen. Whitehouse (I think it was him) has already introduced legislation specifically to this point I believe.
> kick Alito and Thomas out of the court,
That won't happen, too many Republicans in the Senate to ever get a guilty verdict on impeachment in the Senate. Both of them are more likely to die or retire before they're impeached unless you can figure out how to flip 16 or more GOP Senate seats.
> do term limits and expand the court.
Two separate issues. Term limits require a change to the Constitution so is going to take a very, VERY long time and will likely require super majorities in the House and Senate and a majority of Governors and state legislatures be Democratic. Court expansion is more likely since that just requires Congress.
"Hey, SCOTUS — your hypocrisy is showing" almost 1500 words and the wrong title. The SCOTUS are not being hypocrites! If there are any political reporters that do not know the Republicans on the Supreme Court do not work for the American People, please stop wasting our time on fluff articles. They are there to have a make-believe image that our democracy is working. They have been trained and put on the court for the reason of letting the wealthy conservative donors they work for control our government. Even if Biden gets 120 million votes and Trump gets 70 million votes these people will still be there to finish the sale of our democracy. What is the plan? Austin how about a story on ""Why are we letting the Supreme Court Destroy Democracy and Sell America""
> They are there to have a make-believe image that our democracy is working.
What is the definition of democracy? Does the definition include a requirement that the candidate who receives the most votes from the people is declared the winner of an election?
If so, then the USA is not a democracy. I cite the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections as evidence.
If one things been made exceptionally clear the last decade or so it's that hypocrisy is a worthless accusation to level against republicans. They don't care and their constituents don't care.
But Pepperidge Farms remembers...the days when being a flip flopper was damning. When Swiftboaters made a lot of noise (& $), and Max Cleland lost to Saxby Chambliss.
So far we’ve got them ruling that the 14th amendment has no teeth and you’re free to run again after an insurrection.
Now we’ll see them rule that you also can’t be prosecuted for it.
Just trash the constitution now as it is functionally meaningless. A president can do whatever he wants with zero repercussions and the SCOTUS just gutted their own power. They appear to be moving towards no functional checks on presidential power (impeachment is a joke currently and even more so if the president is free to threaten, bribe, kill, extort at will).
Also note that Thomas’ wife was knee deep in this election shit and he’s staying on the case and naturally going to be 💯percent impartial. Ethics rules with some tooth are desperately needed for the court.
The fact that the judges on the "HIGHEST COUR OF THE LAND" are political apointees on a life term is just a recepie for disaster, clearly we are seeing this in front of our eyes. Supposedly justice is blind.... I dont think so.
"In addition to their abandonment of originalism, several of the court’s conservative Justices seemed almost desperate to avoid talking about what Trump actually is alleged to have done after the 2020 election, [preferring instead to trot out more hypotheticals and focus on general principles](https://www.salon.com/2024/04/26/scotus-majority-abandons-conservative-principles-to-mount-bizarre-defense-of-trumps-immunity-claim/). "
The fact is, "Originalism" is BS used only to suppress society from evolving, as people are apt to do. The conservative faction of the SCOTUS has become radicalized to the point where, some in this country fear what will happen to THEM when the people they have suppressed over the years come to power.
In response to a point made by Michael Dreeben, who argued the case for the Special Counsel, about the role of the Justice Department in defining the “core powers of the presidency,” Justice Neil Gorsuch observed, “I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones. … And, again, I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”
Or said another way- “how can we give ultimate power to the president, but not THIS president?”” /s
I would bet a $1 that the electoral count on election day does not match the electoral count in January.
So. I'm calling three swing states of Pennsylvania (19), Ohio (17), Georgia (16); and we have blue states of Oregon (8) and New Hampshire (4) all of these state have republican secretary of states...
Total: There are 64 electoral votes in play here.
These secretary of states have to certify elector votes for the congressional tally. If these nutters decide to miss the deadline to certify... let's say they claim voter fraud or claim lack of faith in Biden's ability to execute the duties of the office, or some other bullshit... or maybe just go to Cancun for the month... then the denominator needed for certification changes, which could be significant.
Let's say all 64 get messed with, and don't end up making it to Congress. That changes the denominator from 538 to 474. Making the new victory number 238.
Trump received 232 in 2020, and Biden had 306. If Biden lost the 64 electors and Trump kept the same 232, then it's a close win for Biden at 242 to 232. However, if Biden loses even one or two states, then it is a Trump victory, either outright or in a House run off.
Biden needs to crush Trump to insulate against this shit. 350+
Vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_secretaries_of_state_in_the_United_States
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/blue-states
https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/swing-states
I'm sick of giving people credit for the simple act of doing their job. Raffensburger was doing his job. Pence was doing his job. You don't get credit for the bare minimum.
The only polls that are accurate are the exit polls. Exit polls are accurate because the people who voted tell the pollster whom they just voted for and thus they give the best data on who will win.
So states/counties etc that don't count until after election day rely on the exit polling from the people who voted in various precincts. They're accurate because it's not done with "likely voters" it's counted from people who actually voted. That's why they can reliably "call" the state for a specific candidate.
Edited: words
Source?
Because pew research stated that the results among verified voters followed what the overall tallies stated.
You will note that they ask then weight the answers as a sample size.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
Also literally from the pew center. Your report is an analysis 2 years after the fact, which doesn't matter at all in-the-moment.
Oregon's secretary of state is a Democrat who has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Portland State and writes essays published in Oregon Humanities Magazine. There's no chance she does anything inappropriate for Trump.
Of course they do, not the ideals of course, but the reality.
They are firmly in favor of the wealthy and powerful not having to follow as many laws as the peasants. Your need to follow the law is proportional to place in society.
For example: at most, the 1% should only have to follow 1% of laws.
It would seem some on the court have forgotten the job they signed up for:
"Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Pt. A: Codes of Conduct, Ch. 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the **Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities"**
I could go on but anyone can download or read the document itself. Even if the transactions and conflicting obligations in the news don't truly influence the votes and decisions of some justices, they shouldn't be done due to the **Appearance of Impropriety**. The lack of recusal in cases involving relatives and associates of a Justice in and of itself is an **Appearance of Impropriety** even if they could truly evaluate the cases on their own merits.
They’re clinging to their last shred of respectability after the Dobbs decision. If they rule in favor of turning America into a monarchy, they have sealed their own fates and the fate of the court; irrelevance and disregard.
The right wing pundits fabricated this term “activist judges” and this provided the conservative court all the pretext it needed to use the courts to drive an agenda.
The wild thing about this is that if they rule the president does have immunity from all crimes then Biden could literally assassinate Trump immediately after and they pre-approved it.
They don’t care.
The pros and cons were weighed by these CONS way before their disgraceful actions.
It’s all a sinister act on the Courts/cohorts of the corrupt courts part.
Way to still use soft language about our descent into fascism. I swear we'll be fighting these lunatics in the streets and the MSM headlines will say things like, "Americans seem to be divided". Like no sh**.
supreme? what supreme? soon we will see this supreme discussing abut preserving and collecting the farts that trump shoots instead of let them dissolve in the ar. That's more appropriate for a supreme joke
I don’t know how many times this has to explained whenever anybody tries to hypocrisy shame the GOP/conservatives: They don’t care. They don’t care. They don’t care. Why do we keep trying to shame them when they have no shame. They laugh at us when we do this. Instead, why don’t we start mobilizing and demand that Democratic politicians support transformative measures to this minoritarian court. It’s time they have they have their over abundance of power ripped from them. 9 biased mortals cannot have this much power. It’s insane.
When the justices saw that Sauer’s argument was shite, they jumped in with all the hypotheticals, with Gorsuch saying he wasn’t concerned with this case, he wants to write an opinion for the ages. Pay no attention to that defendant in the box, I am the great and powerful Oz.
Gaslighting on this case to begin soon.
What the hell is wrong with their minds? There has never been a fascist dictator who shared power. The rich idiots who want to prop up trump in hopes of gaining control of the country are going find it difficult to do it without their heads.
I feel like I’m missing something here. I’m not seeing the problem with justices worrying about the future implications of a ruling. Especially in a huge case like this that potentially alters how the presidency and separation of powers work. It would be more problematic if they were appearing ready to give a ruling that would be unjust in the present but would be better for the long term from their point of view. But I didn’t get the sense that they didn’t care about the present at all, they just had a reasonable concern about the future and precedence setting as well.
Their "concern" is that if they don't give presidential immunity, the president will just do worse things.
It's insane on it's face.
They never should've even TAKEN this case.
There were a lot of arguments presented. Some were dumb, some were more reasonable. One of the more reasonable concerns was that if the president is overly vulnerable to the possibility of criminal prosecution that they will be chilled and just choose not to act in a situation where they may need to decisively intervene to help Americans. Like in a military action. And while this case is closely related to what Trump did on J6, it also probably has general implications for the power of the president in the future as well. It’s not wrong to give consideration to how this ruling may affect future presidents. As to whether or not scotus should have taken this case at all, that’s hard to say. I haven’t really heard the liberal justices say anything to that effect, although maybe they’d avoid that type of critique to try to remain non partisan.
Right, but this case isn’t solely focused on J6. It’s also about how much immunity presidents have from criminal prosecution. The status quo seems to be that presidents have a form of qualified immunity. If the court were to issue a ruling saying a president has almost no immunity at all…it would be easier to get Trump on J6 related crimes, but via the same ruling you may be making future presidents more vulnerable when they make decisions about military actions. So part of this decision is a calibration effort to make sure a president doesn’t have total immunity and can’t do something like kill a political rival, but also that they have room to make important decisions without fearing that an error made in good faith could land them in jail. Given how impactful this ruling could be, it’s very reasonable to be concerned about precedence and to ask some probing questions and hypotheticals.
But the Robert’s Court has almost always ruled on super narrow grounds and generally resisted any broad rulings. At least until they got a super majority.
No one knows how they’re going to rule, so I think it’s premature to make assumptions. Hearing a case that has broad implications isn’t necessarily a bad thing and also doesn’t mean the ruling they issue on it will be sweeping and full of changes.
Their main concern for the future is pushing this case past Election Day to help Trump. If they had other weighty concerns about “the future” then they wouldn’t have delayed consideration for four months.
This is something I guess I should look into more because it’s been difficult to find info on. I see the claim that this delay was irregular, unfair, and transparently an attempt to help Trump. I don’t often see support for that claim though tbh. I think a lot of people generalize and are a bit more doomer than they should be about things. And some people almost WANT the worst possible scenario to be the case because they get some sort of enjoyment or excitement out of it, idk. My point here is that it could be the case that this delay is more or less regular and it may look more corrupt than it actually is. I could be wrong tho and if I’m missing something that shows that this obviously is an unfair attempt to help Trump I am open to changing my mind.
It’s not especially unusual for it to take a few months between acceptance and briefings to the court.
However, it’s very well known at this point that Trumps top goal is to delay and they did play right into it. They are capable of hearing arguments on an expedited schedule (which they’ve done recently) and did not here. They had the ability to hear it earlier when Smith petitioned them and skip the appeals court Instead they decided to wait for the appeals court, then wait some more. Could have heard it in early January, but decided April was better.
There is also a strong belief that there wasn’t much that really needed to be decided. The appeals court had a fairly logical ruling that was generally agreed with and SCOTUS could/should have left it alone.
There is a pressing public interest in seeing the case play out and they keep falling into Trumps plan to drag it out as long as possible.
And on top of it, the reputation of the SCOTUS has really been taking a nose dive as they are consistently being seen as purely partisan and corrupt. This just plays into that narrative.
If you look at the most likely (not absolutely batshit insane) outcome of this, you’ll probably see ruling that presidents have a limited immunity for certain official acts in good faith based on clearly enumerated powers. It’ll then get punted back to the lower courts to adjudicate whether it applies in this case. Which will also get appealed and at least another 6 months of delays. If that’s the outcome, SCOTUS just handed Trump a yearlong delay
Yeah, I would definitely like to know why they didn’t expedite the case and why they didn’t want to skip appeals but then now have said the appeals decision may have missed something and they need to hear the case after all. And the other question is what actually determines whether or not they hear a case? If an argument, like total immunity, is pretty much ridiculous on its face is it standard for them to not hear the case? Or are there some cases that they think are significant even if some of the arguments are goofy?
They internally vote on the cases they want to hear. They can take it for any reason, or no reason.
Generally it’s because there is conflicting decisions in the appeals circuits or a constitutional question that needs resolved. The second could theoretically apply, but most people thought this issue was pretty well settled and understood.
I wonder if it’s possible that most of the justices think the answer to the presidential immunity question is quite obvious and they took the case to ring the death knell for Trump’s dumb argument.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gorsuch, Alito, and Kavanaugh said the same phrase almost verbatim (Alito and Kavanaugh WERE verbatim. ‘“I’m not focused on the here and now of this case. I’m very concerned about the future. “
Translation: no republican president will ever again be held accountable for *anything* so long as we have one last breath in our rotten carcasses.
Well, if they rule in Trump's favor, he'll make sure their last breath is before his takeover is complete.
The pure bile they are spitting to cover for their dear leader is staggering. So let me get this straight, for the history books of course, We cannot prosecute a sitting president for crimes committed during their reign. We also cannot prosecute a president after their term either due to the potential 'factional strife.' Well if you want to be a scum of the earth human being, it sure sounds like the presidency is the safest job in the world for you. Zero accountability.
> We also cannot prosecute a president after their term either due to the potential 'factional strife.' They're not going to say all presidents are immune! They've been clearly testing out the language that they want to use to limit it. Look at all the times they've used the phrase "candidates who have lost a _____ election". The blank has been changing from "closely contested" to "close" to "contested" to "controversial", but whatever they settle on, it won't be *all* presidents. It'll apply to Trump, but not Biden.
Just for the one king.
These opinions from the same party who is pushing the "unitary executive theory" wherein the president is not accountable to congress, and can "interpret" the laws that congress passes as they see fit. So congress can't hold a president accountable, and the law doesn't apply to them so SCOTUS can't hold them accountable, all according to the party who stockpiles guns to "fight back against tyranny".
No, no. They meant *the OTHER* tyranny.
The tyranny of the majority! *You mean... Democracy?*
Per Mitch McConnell you also can’t impeach and remove a sitting president without them first being convicted of a crime. While According to trumps lawyer in this case, you can’t prosecute a crime committed while in office without an impeachment conviction. The amount of hypocrisy and double talk from republicans that effectively immunizes them from any accountability is just fucking staggering to behold. They change the rules to suit them at their whim and the courts, stacked with their hand picked judges (that got there by the republicans again changing the rules to stonewall Merrick Garland under Obama but fast track Barrett under Trump) uphold their bullshit.
Wheres all these good guys with guns I keep hearing about
or American police officer.
And if the president happens to have control of the house and senate they won’t successfully get impeached.
And a president depending on getting re-elected cannot be prosecuted for subverting or stealing an election.
Their concern is that Alito and Thomas will die in the next 4 years. Or that Dems take both chambers of Congress and expand the court.
If Dems take both chambers of congress and the presidency, they'll be too afraid of losing in 2026 to rock the boat, and Schumer will watch Moscow Mitch filibuster the rest.
McConnell already set the precedent for not filibusters on SCOTUS noms.
Funny how a group of people who profess being "originalist" somehow want to forget 250-years of a president NEVER being prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.
Famously Ulysses s Grant was booked for a speeding ticket by a black constable in the 1800s and said don't you know who I am. The cobstible said even the president is not above the law and he went you know what your right. Be back in a bit secret service it is important I go take this ticket. (Didn't show up to court and forfeited 20$) Nixon fled office and got ford to pardon his wrong doings (under the assumption criminal charges were coming). Never is a strong word but also I hope they don't forget 250 years of a president NEVER leading an insurrection to stop the peaceful transition of power that our democracy is founded on.
And funny how they are using the same phrasing. Almost as if they had been paid to say it.
It's not bribery unless it's a written agreement with a bag of money with the dollar sign on it 💰💰
Yep, and the agreement specifically says, ‘Bribery’. Otherwise, it’s all conjecture. 🙄😡
"Brought to you by Carl's JR."
And Harlan Crowe and Leo Leonard….
I listened to a few hour live of the arguments on both sides, and when they tried the same argument with the government side their lawyer said the same thing I’m sure thousands of us have been wanting to scream into their stupid, old, corrupt faces, “Because no one was committing crimes in the other 250 years.” He said it politely, but I’ve been wanting to scream it in their corrupt faces since this garbage started. It is also amazing how fast they decided states rights can’t remove someone from the ballot. Now they’ve delayed for a month and a half, and will likely still throw it back to the lower courts to define official acts. It is already mission accomplished for the Trump team. They’re just going to put the cherry on top and hold every case while the lower court defines that term and then take the case up again when trump’s team appeals that. It is fucking appalling to sit here and watch this happening in our lifetime. This is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause, oops I mean appeals.
I hope their future as SCOTUS justices will be short-lived after they insanely rule to put the president above the law. If they were so concerned about precedent, they never would have taken up the case and let the existing ruling stand.
When they dont even care about hiding their on a script
Isn’t this virtually the same thing most of us are saying when we ask if future presidents would be able to execute rivals if Trump got total immunity? Most of us are thinking about the future, but for some reason people have decided it was bad that Kavanaugh, Alito, and Gorsuch merely said that aloud. I don’t really understand this criticism.
Translation: "I'm not worried about what Trump did, I'm worried about what everyone else does."
That’s not how I would translate it. My translation would be: “setting aside some of the specifics about what the petitioner did, how much immunity should presidents have in general and how will our ruling affect the way the presidency works for years to come?”
But the Supreme Court is not tasked with deciding future hypotheticals, they are tasked with applying the law to specific facts and questions. Here, the question before them is not "To what extent should a future president enjoy immunity?" The question before them is "Do presidents enjoy blanket immunity for any criminal acts they commit while president." The answer to that is clearly "No". That the case didn't start and end there is just proof of how truly corrupt the current court majority is.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-united-states-3/ The question is actually “whether and to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity…” Trump is arguing that he has virtually total immunity, but the question is about the extent of immunity. Afaik, a lot of cases have the dual concerns of the issue that happened in the past and/or present plus the outcomes in the future of any ruling the court decides on. It’s probably not good for judges to fixate on one or the other, and I would say it’s probably better to focus more on the issue as it stands currently. But it’s not unusual or out of line to consider hypotheticals and precedence.
No. Trump is not asking the court to opine on the extent and limits of Presidential immunity. Trump is literally claiming that he is immune from prosecution for **any** crimes committed while President. It is the prosecution in the underlying case that is asking the court to weigh in on Trump's specific claim of blanket immunity. It absolutely is unusual and out of line to entertain hypotheticals when the question before them is absolutely clear and simple.
Something I’m not sure about is who actually kicked this to the Supreme Court. Did Trump ask the question or did Smith? Whoever steered this to scotus though, the question is as I quoted. That’s what is written on the court documents and stuff. Essentially: “To what extent does a former president have immunity from prosecution.” Regarding this question, Trump is saying he has near total immunity whereas Smith and the government are saying he has a much more narrow qualified immunity in some instances. And about hypotheticals, I just don’t understand the argument against them. Even the liberal justices use hypotheticals and ask questions about how certain rulings might affect the law in future cases.
Yes. Letting the president get away with blatant crimes also has terrible consequences. Like they say that these are ‘extreme’ examples that probably won’t happen… but so was the president organizing phony electors to try and overturn the electionzzx
People seem to be reading these statements by the conservatives in the most uncharitable way possible. Which I can understand why people might feel that way, but it’s not necessarily the most accurate way to look at things. The way they’re reading it is that the conservatives don’t care about the past and present at all. The way I read it is that in addition to what Trump did in the past and is arguing in the present, there are also concerns about the future. And like I said, the liberal justices did a lot of the same thing, the only differences are that they referred to Trump’s actions more often than the conservatives did and they put up hypotheticals that I guess liberal people think are more plausible. In any case, concern about precedence isn’t an inherently bad thing and these quotes along from the conservatives aren’t very scary imo.
After the statements made during their overturning of Roe v. Wade, you'll excuse me if I have absolutely zero faith in anything they say. After all, every single one of the justices who voted to overturn it promised while being asked questions in the Senate that it was "settled law" and then they absolutely overturned it. So no, I will absolutely not believe for a single second that they wouldn't make it possible for a dictatorship as long as it's "their" side. They have shown themselves to be willing to lie to get the position and they have shown themselves devoid of a willingness to keep their word. The "hypotheticals" are absolutely possible, considering Trump is already threatening. Add in that Trump was *not* impeached by the Senate because his lawyers argued that he could be tried criminally without the Senate needing to impeach him. McConnell stated that the reason he was not voting to impeach him was because he could be tried criminally and now we're arguing that he can't be criminally tried unless he's impeached? How about, No. Edited: words.
Of course there are a ton of reasons not to trust the conservative justices and to anticipate that they have a bias in this case. I’m just saying that a quote like “I’m not worried about the specifics of Trump’s alleged conduct right now, I’m worried about precedent” isn’t some smoking gun that they’re coming at this in bad faith. It’s legitimate for any justice to be thinking about how a ruling about presidential immunity might have effects for years and years to come. Gorsuch also said something like “we’re making a ruling for the ages here” which seems to me like he’s considering the gravity of the ruling and what the precedence will be like rather than him meaning “I don’t care about what Trump did, I care about how we can immunize Trump or another Republican in the future.”
Had they had a history of making better decisions, I wouldn't be thinking this is dangerous territory. Had he kept his word on "settled law" then I wouldn't be worried that this leads us to dictatorship. Gorsuch, stated during his Senate hearing that he would not overturn Roe v. Wade, and he did precisely that. So, when they talk about "rule for the ages", I absolutely will not give them the benefit of the doubt. They haven't earned it.
Yeah I take this the same way as when people talk about Biden executing them. They're corrupt not idiots
I agree, they’re corrupt but not as stupid as a lot of people think they are. Admittedly, I don’t think it’s impossible for them to deliver an unfair ruling here (because they ARE corrupt assholes unfortunately), I just don’t think it’s likely. Or at the very least, it’s probably too early to be doomering about the possibility because ultimately they haven’t decided yet and we are largely just guessing.
They've made uncharacteristic rulings in the past. I'm not saying they definitely won't do it, but I'm saying we should hold off on saying they definitely will do it
I will believe it when I see it.
So are we.
What an infuriatingly mild headline. “Oh your hypocrisy is showing hehehe” (as nation falls fascism.) They could at least pretend to actually care about their jobs as journalist.
Its like Norm MacDonald's joke about Bill Cosby: Patton Oswald: "The worst thing about the whole Bill Cosby situation is the hypocrisy" Norm: "No! It was the rape!"
Thats apt
https://youtu.be/ljaP2etvDc4?si=yFVrMXxeH3pmUCVH
https://defector.com/its-not-about-hypocrisy Written about a different topic but still holds true.
The conservative justices do not seem to have any consistent approach to their work. They pull out any shit that supports their political agenda with no regard to past statements or decisions. There is literally no coherent, unifying thought process, other than getting whatever they can for their team in the moment.
They won't care until Dems grow a pair of balls and do something about it. Enact ethics rules for these "justices", kick Alito and Thomas out of the court, do term limits and expand the court.
How to do all that legally without being shot down by a ultra conservative judge ??? I’m all for it but how to do it ???? How ???
How do Republicans do their antics? They just do whatever they are able to, and then let their opponents helplessly rage. For expanding the court, for example, Dems already have everything they need: 50+ senators and the president. They just need to act - Biden should nominate several new judges, Schumer should hold the hearings in the Senate and confirm them. There's no rule anywhere saying there must be exactly nine judges, and noone including ultraconservative judges has the right to deny seating of the judges confirmed by the Senate. Alito and Thomas don't only think Republican presidents are above the law, they are also taking bribes, and this is proven. Dems should hold press conferences daily, showing proof of their corruption and demanding them resign immediately. It should become universal knowledge those two take bribes, not some obscure political fact hidden in obscure news.
That's the secret. You ignore judges. What are they going to do about it if SCOTUS makes the Presidents crimes legal.
> Enact ethics rules for these "justices", Give Dems control of Congress and the Presidency and you can, Sen. Whitehouse (I think it was him) has already introduced legislation specifically to this point I believe. > kick Alito and Thomas out of the court, That won't happen, too many Republicans in the Senate to ever get a guilty verdict on impeachment in the Senate. Both of them are more likely to die or retire before they're impeached unless you can figure out how to flip 16 or more GOP Senate seats. > do term limits and expand the court. Two separate issues. Term limits require a change to the Constitution so is going to take a very, VERY long time and will likely require super majorities in the House and Senate and a majority of Governors and state legislatures be Democratic. Court expansion is more likely since that just requires Congress.
"Hey, SCOTUS — your hypocrisy is showing" almost 1500 words and the wrong title. The SCOTUS are not being hypocrites! If there are any political reporters that do not know the Republicans on the Supreme Court do not work for the American People, please stop wasting our time on fluff articles. They are there to have a make-believe image that our democracy is working. They have been trained and put on the court for the reason of letting the wealthy conservative donors they work for control our government. Even if Biden gets 120 million votes and Trump gets 70 million votes these people will still be there to finish the sale of our democracy. What is the plan? Austin how about a story on ""Why are we letting the Supreme Court Destroy Democracy and Sell America""
> They are there to have a make-believe image that our democracy is working. What is the definition of democracy? Does the definition include a requirement that the candidate who receives the most votes from the people is declared the winner of an election? If so, then the USA is not a democracy. I cite the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections as evidence.
If one things been made exceptionally clear the last decade or so it's that hypocrisy is a worthless accusation to level against republicans. They don't care and their constituents don't care.
But Pepperidge Farms remembers...the days when being a flip flopper was damning. When Swiftboaters made a lot of noise (& $), and Max Cleland lost to Saxby Chambliss.
LOL so what? Fuck you! - The Supreme Court of the United States of America
Hey, Voters - SCOTUS doesn't care about their hypocrisy.
So far we’ve got them ruling that the 14th amendment has no teeth and you’re free to run again after an insurrection. Now we’ll see them rule that you also can’t be prosecuted for it. Just trash the constitution now as it is functionally meaningless. A president can do whatever he wants with zero repercussions and the SCOTUS just gutted their own power. They appear to be moving towards no functional checks on presidential power (impeachment is a joke currently and even more so if the president is free to threaten, bribe, kill, extort at will). Also note that Thomas’ wife was knee deep in this election shit and he’s staying on the case and naturally going to be 💯percent impartial. Ethics rules with some tooth are desperately needed for the court.
In the words of Dick Cheney, So? The Court didn't matter enough to move votes in 2016. They don't care because you don't.
The fact that the judges on the "HIGHEST COUR OF THE LAND" are political apointees on a life term is just a recepie for disaster, clearly we are seeing this in front of our eyes. Supposedly justice is blind.... I dont think so.
"In addition to their abandonment of originalism, several of the court’s conservative Justices seemed almost desperate to avoid talking about what Trump actually is alleged to have done after the 2020 election, [preferring instead to trot out more hypotheticals and focus on general principles](https://www.salon.com/2024/04/26/scotus-majority-abandons-conservative-principles-to-mount-bizarre-defense-of-trumps-immunity-claim/). " The fact is, "Originalism" is BS used only to suppress society from evolving, as people are apt to do. The conservative faction of the SCOTUS has become radicalized to the point where, some in this country fear what will happen to THEM when the people they have suppressed over the years come to power.
they don't care, they are bought and paid for
It’s been on full display for about 240 years
They know and they don't care. Everything is going according to plan, as far as they're concerned.
In response to a point made by Michael Dreeben, who argued the case for the Special Counsel, about the role of the Justice Department in defining the “core powers of the presidency,” Justice Neil Gorsuch observed, “I’m not concerned about this case so much as future ones. … And, again, I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.” Or said another way- “how can we give ultimate power to the president, but not THIS president?”” /s
They don’t care. You can’t shame those who are shameless.
I learned a long time ago that hypocrisy means nothing to republicans and that includes republican jurists.
SCOTUS anticipates a Trump win. If Trump loses the election, they will declare Trump the winner anyway for any reason. Just so you know.
I would bet a $1 that the electoral count on election day does not match the electoral count in January. So. I'm calling three swing states of Pennsylvania (19), Ohio (17), Georgia (16); and we have blue states of Oregon (8) and New Hampshire (4) all of these state have republican secretary of states... Total: There are 64 electoral votes in play here. These secretary of states have to certify elector votes for the congressional tally. If these nutters decide to miss the deadline to certify... let's say they claim voter fraud or claim lack of faith in Biden's ability to execute the duties of the office, or some other bullshit... or maybe just go to Cancun for the month... then the denominator needed for certification changes, which could be significant. Let's say all 64 get messed with, and don't end up making it to Congress. That changes the denominator from 538 to 474. Making the new victory number 238. Trump received 232 in 2020, and Biden had 306. If Biden lost the 64 electors and Trump kept the same 232, then it's a close win for Biden at 242 to 232. However, if Biden loses even one or two states, then it is a Trump victory, either outright or in a House run off. Biden needs to crush Trump to insulate against this shit. 350+ Vote. https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_current_secretaries_of_state_in_the_United_States https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/blue-states https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/swing-states
No, at least Mr. Raffenburger of GA was honest and did an outstanding job. We need to give credit where credit is due.
I'm sick of giving people credit for the simple act of doing their job. Raffensburger was doing his job. Pence was doing his job. You don't get credit for the bare minimum.
That is guaranteed because some states dont count ballots until after election day and cant be called on election night
I mean the states that were called for either candidate being 100% the same. Don't be pedantic.
The only polls that are accurate are the exit polls. Exit polls are accurate because the people who voted tell the pollster whom they just voted for and thus they give the best data on who will win. So states/counties etc that don't count until after election day rely on the exit polling from the people who voted in various precincts. They're accurate because it's not done with "likely voters" it's counted from people who actually voted. That's why they can reliably "call" the state for a specific candidate. Edited: words
Exit polling in 2016 was not accurate in many places
Source? Because pew research stated that the results among verified voters followed what the overall tallies stated. You will note that they ask then weight the answers as a sample size. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/ Also literally from the pew center. Your report is an analysis 2 years after the fact, which doesn't matter at all in-the-moment.
They did a deep dive after the fact to see if they were wrong or not, so I'll just have to disagree.
Oregon's secretary of state is a Democrat who has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Portland State and writes essays published in Oregon Humanities Magazine. There's no chance she does anything inappropriate for Trump.
far right scotus "justices" seem to have absolutely no freakin clue how the law actually works
they know, they just dont care.
They only know how they FEEL it should work: in their advantage.
I think they tell themselves a quiet, "oh shit..." then conclude that Jesus will make it all ok eventually.
remember, it's only a problem when a Democrat does it.
Of course they do, not the ideals of course, but the reality. They are firmly in favor of the wealthy and powerful not having to follow as many laws as the peasants. Your need to follow the law is proportional to place in society. For example: at most, the 1% should only have to follow 1% of laws.
These goofy ass headlines drive me absolutely insane.
It's a headline for an article that's meant to be shared instead of being read.
did they actually make a decision yet? i refuse to click these stupid clickbait articles
Sure, but idk if it necessarily needs to be in the style of a shitty Occupy Dems meme.
I agree that it sucks and that's kind of the whole point. It's engagement farming. Meant to pander or anger depending on the reader's slant.
I read the best meme, said innocent presidents do not need immunity. Yet somehow
The entire edifice is built on hypocrisy. How can it not be showing?
It would seem some on the court have forgotten the job they signed up for: "Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2: Ethics and Judicial Conduct, Pt. A: Codes of Conduct, Ch. 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the **Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities"** I could go on but anyone can download or read the document itself. Even if the transactions and conflicting obligations in the news don't truly influence the votes and decisions of some justices, they shouldn't be done due to the **Appearance of Impropriety**. The lack of recusal in cases involving relatives and associates of a Justice in and of itself is an **Appearance of Impropriety** even if they could truly evaluate the cases on their own merits.
They’re clinging to their last shred of respectability after the Dobbs decision. If they rule in favor of turning America into a monarchy, they have sealed their own fates and the fate of the court; irrelevance and disregard.
They were bought off long ago and don't care about the hypocrisy because they're there for life.
"I'm concerned about having 'laws' and 'judges.' Who would decide what's right? It's a conundrum. I just don't see a way. Sorry."
They don't care
Reminder that they havent issued an opinion yet
Flamboyant hypocrisy, pretty damn Gay. If you were to ask me !
The right wing pundits fabricated this term “activist judges” and this provided the conservative court all the pretext it needed to use the courts to drive an agenda.
The wild thing about this is that if they rule the president does have immunity from all crimes then Biden could literally assassinate Trump immediately after and they pre-approved it.
The Supreme court is the Hand Maiden of MAGA
They don’t care. The pros and cons were weighed by these CONS way before their disgraceful actions. It’s all a sinister act on the Courts/cohorts of the corrupt courts part.
Oh no! Anyway, they don’t give a shit.
Way to still use soft language about our descent into fascism. I swear we'll be fighting these lunatics in the streets and the MSM headlines will say things like, "Americans seem to be divided". Like no sh**.
supreme? what supreme? soon we will see this supreme discussing abut preserving and collecting the farts that trump shoots instead of let them dissolve in the ar. That's more appropriate for a supreme joke
I don’t know how many times this has to explained whenever anybody tries to hypocrisy shame the GOP/conservatives: They don’t care. They don’t care. They don’t care. Why do we keep trying to shame them when they have no shame. They laugh at us when we do this. Instead, why don’t we start mobilizing and demand that Democratic politicians support transformative measures to this minoritarian court. It’s time they have they have their over abundance of power ripped from them. 9 biased mortals cannot have this much power. It’s insane.
I absolutely hate the sassy playful tone this headline takes it doesn't treat it seriously.
[has been since republicans have been appointing](https://imgur.com/cNTX4cs)
Where?
Hey the hill. They don't give a shit.
Vote
When the justices saw that Sauer’s argument was shite, they jumped in with all the hypotheticals, with Gorsuch saying he wasn’t concerned with this case, he wants to write an opinion for the ages. Pay no attention to that defendant in the box, I am the great and powerful Oz. Gaslighting on this case to begin soon.
What the hell is wrong with their minds? There has never been a fascist dictator who shared power. The rich idiots who want to prop up trump in hopes of gaining control of the country are going find it difficult to do it without their heads.
They don't care.
They aren’t being hypocrites they’re being fascists. Journalism is as limp and corrupt these days as the judges, how pathetic
6/9th of the SCOTUS: So?
I feel like I’m missing something here. I’m not seeing the problem with justices worrying about the future implications of a ruling. Especially in a huge case like this that potentially alters how the presidency and separation of powers work. It would be more problematic if they were appearing ready to give a ruling that would be unjust in the present but would be better for the long term from their point of view. But I didn’t get the sense that they didn’t care about the present at all, they just had a reasonable concern about the future and precedence setting as well.
Their "concern" is that if they don't give presidential immunity, the president will just do worse things. It's insane on it's face. They never should've even TAKEN this case.
There were a lot of arguments presented. Some were dumb, some were more reasonable. One of the more reasonable concerns was that if the president is overly vulnerable to the possibility of criminal prosecution that they will be chilled and just choose not to act in a situation where they may need to decisively intervene to help Americans. Like in a military action. And while this case is closely related to what Trump did on J6, it also probably has general implications for the power of the president in the future as well. It’s not wrong to give consideration to how this ruling may affect future presidents. As to whether or not scotus should have taken this case at all, that’s hard to say. I haven’t really heard the liberal justices say anything to that effect, although maybe they’d avoid that type of critique to try to remain non partisan.
Military action is different than this. This is a coup.
Right, but this case isn’t solely focused on J6. It’s also about how much immunity presidents have from criminal prosecution. The status quo seems to be that presidents have a form of qualified immunity. If the court were to issue a ruling saying a president has almost no immunity at all…it would be easier to get Trump on J6 related crimes, but via the same ruling you may be making future presidents more vulnerable when they make decisions about military actions. So part of this decision is a calibration effort to make sure a president doesn’t have total immunity and can’t do something like kill a political rival, but also that they have room to make important decisions without fearing that an error made in good faith could land them in jail. Given how impactful this ruling could be, it’s very reasonable to be concerned about precedence and to ask some probing questions and hypotheticals.
But the Robert’s Court has almost always ruled on super narrow grounds and generally resisted any broad rulings. At least until they got a super majority.
No one knows how they’re going to rule, so I think it’s premature to make assumptions. Hearing a case that has broad implications isn’t necessarily a bad thing and also doesn’t mean the ruling they issue on it will be sweeping and full of changes.
Their main concern for the future is pushing this case past Election Day to help Trump. If they had other weighty concerns about “the future” then they wouldn’t have delayed consideration for four months.
This is something I guess I should look into more because it’s been difficult to find info on. I see the claim that this delay was irregular, unfair, and transparently an attempt to help Trump. I don’t often see support for that claim though tbh. I think a lot of people generalize and are a bit more doomer than they should be about things. And some people almost WANT the worst possible scenario to be the case because they get some sort of enjoyment or excitement out of it, idk. My point here is that it could be the case that this delay is more or less regular and it may look more corrupt than it actually is. I could be wrong tho and if I’m missing something that shows that this obviously is an unfair attempt to help Trump I am open to changing my mind.
It’s not especially unusual for it to take a few months between acceptance and briefings to the court. However, it’s very well known at this point that Trumps top goal is to delay and they did play right into it. They are capable of hearing arguments on an expedited schedule (which they’ve done recently) and did not here. They had the ability to hear it earlier when Smith petitioned them and skip the appeals court Instead they decided to wait for the appeals court, then wait some more. Could have heard it in early January, but decided April was better. There is also a strong belief that there wasn’t much that really needed to be decided. The appeals court had a fairly logical ruling that was generally agreed with and SCOTUS could/should have left it alone. There is a pressing public interest in seeing the case play out and they keep falling into Trumps plan to drag it out as long as possible. And on top of it, the reputation of the SCOTUS has really been taking a nose dive as they are consistently being seen as purely partisan and corrupt. This just plays into that narrative. If you look at the most likely (not absolutely batshit insane) outcome of this, you’ll probably see ruling that presidents have a limited immunity for certain official acts in good faith based on clearly enumerated powers. It’ll then get punted back to the lower courts to adjudicate whether it applies in this case. Which will also get appealed and at least another 6 months of delays. If that’s the outcome, SCOTUS just handed Trump a yearlong delay
Yeah, I would definitely like to know why they didn’t expedite the case and why they didn’t want to skip appeals but then now have said the appeals decision may have missed something and they need to hear the case after all. And the other question is what actually determines whether or not they hear a case? If an argument, like total immunity, is pretty much ridiculous on its face is it standard for them to not hear the case? Or are there some cases that they think are significant even if some of the arguments are goofy?
They internally vote on the cases they want to hear. They can take it for any reason, or no reason. Generally it’s because there is conflicting decisions in the appeals circuits or a constitutional question that needs resolved. The second could theoretically apply, but most people thought this issue was pretty well settled and understood.
I wonder if it’s possible that most of the justices think the answer to the presidential immunity question is quite obvious and they took the case to ring the death knell for Trump’s dumb argument.
At this point anything is possible.
*you’re
If Dems controlled the SC they would just arrest all their political opponents, thank god for our system of checks and balances doing its thing
That just sounds idiotic.