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.

  • @NightAuthor
    link
    English
    710 months ago

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

    • @RGB3x3
      link
      English
      810 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        1010 months ago

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

        • @SinningStromgald
          link
          510 months ago

          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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      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
        link
        English
        310 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          210 months ago

          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.