cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/9459554
The Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on a question that will decide if the former president faces charges for efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to review a fast-tracked petition asking if Donald Trump can use his status as a former president to claim immunity from criminal charges related to his effort to overturn the 2020 election.
The order came only hours after Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the justices to expedite consideration of Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his D.C. prosecution for election interference leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. The decision is not an agreement to hear Smith’s case, but rather an agreement to review his petition faster than normal.
Trump is going to find he doesn’t have enough friends at the Supreme Court to form a majority, again
One would hope.
I sincerely hope you’re right, but it needs to be made clear that it’s by no means a sure thing. Alito and Thomas will undoubtedly vote to give Trump blanket immunity, because that’s how they roll. We’ll see if Kavanaugh, Comey-Barret, Gorsuch, or Roberts support the overtly-political reading (i.e. “the GOP can do what it wants”). I’d bet that Comey-Barret will end up voting with Alito and Thomas, and maybe Kavanaugh… Gorsuch is a bit of a cypher here, so that’s a coin toss, and I don’t think Roberts will sign on, because he’s still paying lip service to caring about his “legacy” (but at the same time, that blade cut two ways, and he might decide to throw in with the GOP because he thinks they’ll eventually come out on top).
Do note that I’m not even bothering to pretend anyone in the Tribunal of Six is impartial, because they’re not. To be fair, the “liberal justices” aren’t either, but they’re mostly just partial to not destroying the bedrock of the US system of government.
If Bush v. Gore taught us anything, Supreme Court will issue a freebie one-time only, get out of jail, but seriously, this does not count as a precedent ruling.
And it will, no doubt, be taken well by everyone.
Fair warning: I’m european.
But this whole Trump debacle saddens me.
You are trying to move accusations against a stain of a human being, with varying degrees of (in)success.
Meanwhile, in less than six months, my country had mayors, politians, secretaries of state, members of the government, the prime minister and even the president involved in police investigations, mostly for serious fraud and corruption cases, with a good number of arrests thrown in, nobody bats an eye and everyone is shouting “throw them in jail” and applauding the police for showing some proper work.
It used to be the other way around when I was a kid. You were famous for throwing politians in jail.
I mean, why not? If police are above the law, why shouldn’t the president be? If the Supreme Court justices aren’t held to any standard of accountability, why should the president be? Can’t we, for once, have some logical consistency in this country?
If police are above the law
That’s what we call ‘beggaring the question’.
-
That isn’t an example of “beggaring the question.” You clearly don’t understand the fallacy.
-
The entire comment is sarcasm.
-
I predict that they rule in his favor. He is facing so many court cases, that eventually he’ll be convicted of something worth a jail sentence. The establishment cannot allow the precedent of a US president going to jail. This “quick review” will be a good way to ensure the status quo remains. Only other option is drag things out til he can win again and all his cases go away.
