It could take months for the justices to issue an opinion. If they rule that the election case can go forward, Trump could be on trial shortly before the November presidential election.
It could take months for the justices to issue an opinion. If they rule that the election case can go forward, Trump could be on trial shortly before the November presidential election.
My hope is that they are going to say, of course a president isn’t a god-emperor - and in doing so put to bed the argument for all cases outstanding.
Right now, there evidently isn’t legal precedence that a president does or does not have blanket immunity for all crimes in perpetuity - we all collectively assumed that (along with a suite of other established practices that are not codified in law).
Trump thumbed his orange nose at things previously assumed like, “don’t hire your daughter or son-in-law to positions in the Whitehouse” and “Hey, maybe don’t hold foreign aid over a nation state in return for real or imaginary dirt on a political opponent”.
As sad as it is, we kind of need SCOTUS to make a determination here, as Congress didn’t pass laws after January 6th to specifically prohibit that activity.
“Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
This is quite clear. Legal precedence for immunity is denied when you swear an oath to defend the constitution, of which an oath to not do anything insurrection related is apart