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.

  • cogman@lemmy.world
    381·
    9 months ago

    It shouldn’t have taken any time. They should have denied cert.

    The fact that at least 4 justices granted it is beyond ridiculous.

    Further, they’ve delayed the hearing until the end of April, which is extremely stupid, they are hearing cases now.

    They may not even issue a decision in June with the rest of the cases, it may be next year. And if that’s the case and trump is elected, he could stop the hearing in it’s tracks by pardoning himself.

    They seriously took the position "yeah, the ruling that said in this specific instance with Trump, a president cannot be immune. A perfectly reasonable take given there’s so many more mundane reasons why the FBI might convict a former president.

    • MisterMoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
      323·
      9 months ago

      I disagree. I think this question is novel enough that it needs Supreme Court review, not merely letting a lower court ruling stand. That opinion needs to come out at light speed though.

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        28·
        9 months ago

        If the question was so novel then why did the supreme Court punt it to the lower court and then ignore the lower courts narrowing? What purpose did that serve?

        This is rat fucking.

        And it’s a dumb question “is the president a dictator”? Are you serious? How can the correct answer be anything besides “no”? This is the easiest question to answer that’s ever been asked.

        The consequence of “yes” is that Biden gets to order the assassination of some senators and justices and can call off the upcoming election. That’s how ridiculous this is.

        The lower court wrote 57 pages of heavily cited legal theory and history proving “no”. There’s no reason for the Supreme Court to ignore all that.

      • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
        23·
        9 months ago

        The question isn’t novel though.

        The foundation of the Constitution (and any legitimate constitutional government) is that the law applies to everyone, even the executive.

        This question of presidential immunity was answered in 1788 with an emphatic “no.” There was no reason for them to take this case other than to delay the ruling.

        • MisterMoo@lemmy.worldEnglish
          114·
          9 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.

          • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
            17·
            9 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.

              • Zombiepirate@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                9 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.

              • cogman@lemmy.world
                5·
                9 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.