Donald Trump uses the slow legal system to his advantage. The Supreme Court is helping | CNN Politics
www.cnn.com
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution keeps the justices at the center of election-year controversy for several more months and means any verdict on Trump’s alleged subversion of the 2020 vote will not come before summer.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution keeps the justices at the center of election-year controversy for several more months and means any verdict on Trump’s alleged subversion of the 2020 vote will not come before summer.

The country’s highest court wants the final word on the former president’s assertion of immunity, even if it may ultimately affirm a comprehensive ruling of the lower federal court that rejected Trump’s sweeping claim.

For Trump, Wednesday’s order amounts to another win from the justice system he routinely attacks. The justices’ intervention in the case, Trump v. United States, also marks another milestone in the fraught relationship between the court and the former president.

Cases related to his policies and his personal dealings consistently roiled the justices behind the scenes. At the same time, Trump, who appointed three of the nine justices, significantly influenced the court’s lurch to the right, most notably its 2022 reversal of nearly a half century of abortion rights and reproductive freedom.

  • @MisterMooEnglish
    -14•10 months ago

    If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases or just do what seems to be impossible on the internet: admit you’re wrong.

    No one is denying that this may be an open-and-shut case but the Supreme Court has never taken up the question so…. it’s novel.

    • @ZombiepirateEnglish
      18•10 months ago

      If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases

      United States v. Nixon (1974): This landmark decision addressed whether President Richard Nixon could claim executive privilege to avoid turning over tape recordings in the Watergate scandal. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that while the president enjoys a qualified immunity from judicial process under certain circumstances, this immunity is not absolute. The Court held that the need for evidence in a trial outweighed the president’s claim of executive privilege, leading to Nixon’s resignation.

      I assume you’re going to admit that you were wrong now? Or is that impossible on the Internet?

      Please explain why the president would need to provide evidence for a trial that was unconstitutional.

      • @MisterMooEnglish
        -3•10 months ago

        That case was about executive privilege, not criminal statutes.

        • @ZombiepirateEnglish
          2•10 months ago

          Please explain why the president would need to provide evidence for a trial that was unconstitutional.

          My reply was three sentences long. Please try not to get distracted, this will be on the test.

      • @MisterMooEnglish
        -2•10 months ago

        Not a Supreme Court case. Why are you getting upvotes?

        • @cogman
          6•10 months ago

          Hmmm I wonder.

          Could it be because, as I said, this ruling cites multiple supreme court cases in context? That it provides you exactly what you asked for if you’d simply read it?

          Nah, that can’t be it. Guess it’ll remain a mystery.