At this point in history, I don't see any way that SCOTUS weighing in on this is going to be beneficial.
this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023
27 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
11 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So hard to say if they will
-
Rule that only trump has absolute immunity
-
Rule that all presidents have absolute immunity
-
Rule that trump had absolute immunity, but no other president has it starting…now!
Personally I would expect 2 or 3. Most likely 3, so they can appeal to sensibilities and say they plugged up the executive power loophole until an act of Congress modifies the constitution thusly.
"This decision does not set a precedent."
idk, they rejected every attempt Trump made to overturn the election. he thinks he owns them because he appointed them, but right now they have all the power and he has neither a carrot nor a stick to show them.
The truth is if Trump becomes dictator the SCOTUS is dead. Not even the worst of them want to lessen their grip on power.
Yeah I think Trump is doomed. I don't think the SCOTUS will touch such a toxic decision with a ten foot pole.
Of course this is just a stupid delay tactic by his defense attorneys.
I do think the current judge can simply refuse to wait. I don't know if they will or not. The SCOTUS can also simply refuse to make any ruling and just challenge the defense to appeal the case up to them after the current judge rules.
Of course this is just a stupid delay tactic by his defense attorneys.
Jack Smith is the prosecutor, not a defense attorney. With that being said, I think you're accidentally right. I don't think Smith would push so hard for SCotUS to rule if he thought they were going to rule against him.
I am not sure about Smith's motivation being about how they will rule but rather because that is where it will end up one way or the other. This just gets it there faster, and time is of the essence.
Kind of trumped Trump