SCOTUS Conservatives Show Their Whole Asses In Trump Immunity Argument - Above the Law
By: Liz Dye (Above the Law)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Not subtle.
By Liz DyeonApril 25, 2024 at 2:14 PMApril 25, 2024 at 1:54 PM
Hey, remember that funny time back in 2020 when Donald Trump's pals on the Supreme Court threw a year-long wrench in the works before deciding that, yeah, okay, sitting presidents can be investigated for crimes?
This morning, the Supreme Court heard argument in Trump's effort to get his federal election interference case dismissed on grounds of magical, perpetual presidential immunity. We all know where this ends. Not even this court is going to rule that presidents are wholly above the law. But the question of when that train pulls into the station is critical, since an arrival date in 2025 will allow the defendant to push the carriage off the track and into a steep ravine where it implodes in a great ball of fire, along with the American democratic experiment.
The morning started with Trump's lawyer D. John Sauer attempting to make chicken salad out of chicken shit. He opened by warning that allowing ex-presidents to be prosecuted for crimes committed in office would result in "de facto blackmail and extortion," ensuring a chief executive sitting frozen in fear in the Oval Office, terrified that his successor would invent a crime to LOCK HIM UP.
Relatedly, here's a email sent out by the Trump campaign yesterday.
The justices largely took turns whacking Sauer about like a pinata, with Justice Barrett forcing the lawyer to admit that much of the conduct charged in the indictment was of a purely personal, non-official nature. The lawyer did manage to catch himself when it came to the fraudulent slates of electors Trump got his campaign to gin up, insisting that this was totes part of his official duties. Under questioning by Justice Sotomayor, Sauer channeled Kellyanne Conway, insisting that they were "alternative" electors, not fake! The ass-kicking concluded with Justice Kagan cornering Sauer on the subject of presidential coups and whether they were legal in the absence of impeachment and conviction. Spoiler alert: YUP.
But when Michael Dreeben, the OG Supreme Court advocate, took his turn, things went totally sideways. Justice Alito picked this morning to get in touch with his inner Black Panther, inveighing against dirty prosecutors abusing their office to indict opponents, Fourth Amendment be damned. Wouldn't it be better, he wondered, to simply let presidents just do all the crimes before leaving office. Wouldn't the fear of being prosecuted simply encourage coups?
With Alito staking out the absolute craziest possible position, this left his fellow conservatives free to occupy the "middle" ground, i.e. gazing at their navels until July and then pulling out a Lint Test — with more branches than the Comcast customer service phone tree — for the district court to deploy. Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, appear to favor this "moderate" position, which would remand the case to the trial court for further determination as to which acts were personal and which official, and if so, which implicated a "core" presidential duty. One wonders why they couldn't have developed this test back in December the first time the Special Counsel asked them to.
Just kidding. No one wonders that.
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch took great pains to say that they needed to devote appropriate time to this weighty issue.
"I'm not thinking about the case before us," Gorsuch intoned somberly, as if he weren't doing everything in his considerable power to ensure that "the case before us" drags out until after November. Kavanaugh echoed this sentiment, even as he strongly hinted that the special counsel's appointment was itself unconstitutional. It's a bold move from a guy who got his start writing the Starr Report and harassing a sitting president for a picture of his penis. But if Alito can go ACAB, then anything is possible.
Among the conservatives, only Justice Barrett seems to have the capacity for shame. She suggested that the case proceed to trial on the admittedly non-official acts while her colleagues play with their belly buttons. Presumably this weakness will wear off after a few more terms.
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Well, at least it was entertaining. I am sick, so I was home, napping in my chair, when I was awakened by this really gravelly voice croaking about something. I think I am glad that I cannot remember just how I was trying to incorporate that into my dream....
Lol. The progressives continue their assault on norms and the court in their quest to destroy their white whale. They just want to get rid of laws and due process all together to return to their Democratic roots of lynchings.
It's a shame what's happened to the left in this country. The old liberals focus on civil rights and protecting the individual have been thrown overboard in favor of the progressives authoritarians embrace of the exercise of as much raw power as they can in service of their immediate goals and damn the consequences. Shameful stuff.
[✘]
the court is an embarrassment
I think it may be too early for a ruling on the matter. The SCOTUS is very likely to send the case back to a lower court for more deliberations. There are still unanswered questions about exactly which official acts of the former President are protected.
Being a blowhard coward, I'm sure he is hoping everyone will forget his sitting in the Oval Office dining nook eating potato chips and watching the riot unfold , in his behalf, on the Fox News Channel.
I'm predicting a 5-4 decision to send it back to the DC court for more deliberations.
What is easy to predict is that the SCotUS will perpetuate the delay of the Jan 6th trial.
They have several ways to do this. Sending it back to a lower court is probably the best way to effect a long delay. Basically, it starts the process all over again with a new, more-specific objective.
No worries, the American people do not need to know (per the legal process) if the GOP nominee "is a crook" or not.
I'd like to discuss it, but you had ample chance to weigh in on this topic today and I have to eat.
Have a good night.
Not only do you not have the right to dictate when people can opine, this is not even your article.
The bottom line is that the SCotUS is intentionally delaying the Jan 6th trial. Those complaining that Trump is being treated unfairly need to also look at all the breaks he has been given ... including the most major break by the SCotUS.
Do you think the supreme court is making decisions based on what Trump wants?
do you think the court is acting expeditiously ? Do you remember how fast they acted in Bush V Gore ?
That is with the urgency this case deserves when weighing whether one accused of attempting to unlawfully stay in power is attempting to again gain power, along with the possibility of immunity from ANY laws. This is just plain STUPID
Should I take that rant as a yes?
I think the SCotUS has decided that they do not want to be the agent to determine who will be the next PotUS. Further, I think they have decided that the potential harm to the nation of having Trump be a convicted felon with merit (the Jan 6th case!) would be dangerous new territory. To wit, my current opinion is that the SCotUS is doing its best to let the voters determine if they are willing to have Trump as PotUS. This would mean that they are, in effect, operating extrajudicially but likely based on some big picture, long term justification.
As good a theory as any.
The Court of Appeals opinion, despite some uninformed commentary to the contrary, was slapdash and incoherent. Unsurprisingly, not a single justice bothered supporting the approach it took. The Supreme Court will create the standard and remand to the trial court to apply it, which is how our system operates. But left wing terrorists want all that thrown out the window so they can just can just lynch Trump without regard to due process or the rule of law.
The DC Courts are filled with ideologues disguised as Judges.
Where do you get this analysis?
The court of appeals delivered a lengthy, comprehensive summary of the case, case law, and their reasoning.
Ultimately, Trump's attorneys were trying to get Trump cleared by having total immunity for anything he did as PotUS. All that really is required is to state that total immunity, as described by Trump's attorneys, is unconstitutional. That would be enough for Smith to continue. The specifics of that trial could then be appealed and a ruling particular to Trump's exact situation in the context of his indictment could be handled with normal due process.
Is it possible to say kaddish for a whole nation? Where is Enoch when we really need him?
Evening Buzz...yes I for one miss Enoch... often wonder what happened to him...
Seemed to just disappear sadly..🥀