It's down to us.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose it always has been.

By now I should have known better than to be shocked by the Court's decision to take on the Trump immunity case. But I still was. The very fact that the court is taking up this case with absolutely, unequivocally, no merit means in no uncertain terms that the conservative majority is doing what it can to make sure that Jack Smith's prosecution of Trump for the failed insurrection will not occur before the election. They are with him. Do they really think the American public will not see this for what it is? Delay is a victory for Trump and a defeat for justice. Something the conservatives understand implicitly.

Beyond the absurdity of taking the case in the first place is the way they have laid out the schedule. Oral arguments do not begin until April 22nd. An inexplicable delay after taking two and a half weeks to decide to take the case. This, after Smith asked the Court to decide whether to take it prior to the appellate court's unanimous decision no President has such immunity after being thrown out at the district court level.

Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to reject a request from Mr. Trump to put the case on hold while he pursues appeals.

“Delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict — a compelling interest in every criminal case and one that has unique national importance here, as it involves federal criminal charges against a former president for alleged criminal efforts to overturn the results of the presidential election, including through the use of official power,” Mr. Smith wrote.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/14/us/supreme-court-trump-immunity.html

The Court's ruling on the case is all but a foregone conclusion. It is not legally possible for the Court to claim that presidents have lifetime immunity from criminal prosecution for crimes they commit while in office. Trump's contention the administration of elections falls within the scope of his official duties being laughable. So instead, their strategy is to ensure that the American people will be denied knowing what the verdict in the case is before they cast their votes. Because the trial that was set to begin just days from now in early March is now on hold. In 7 weeks oral arguments will start. Even if the Court were to make an expedited ruling (not likely since it would defeat the purpose of the conservatives) Judge Chutkan will be up against the DoJ prohibition of not engaging in actions so close to an election that it could influence the outcome. The prohibition Repub Jim Comey violated before the 2016 election. It's as though the conservatives were looking at a calendar to inform their decisions. Of course they were.

So, it's down to us. The institutions of government in the era of Trumpery are no longer aligned with the public's interest in preserving democracy. We, that is those of us who see what is happening and know what is at stake, must save ourselves now. The entity riding to the rescue is us.........or it all comes down.

 

Not surprising to me at all. Legal immunity is critical, I think, to a president being able to do the job. Imagine if every decision was met with a promise to prosecute the president after he or she leaves office. That would handcuff the president very effectively. Is it OK for a president to break the law? Obviously not. But the remedy for that is impeachment as prescribed in the constitution. Taking political revenge through the judicial system after the president leaves office doesn't serve the country at all. Remember 1/2 the country doesn't think Jan 6 was an insurrection and doesn't think Trump was responsible for it. So your view of it is popular but not definitive. As we all know it hasn't been tried.

The supreme court doesn't like getting involved in political issues like this but I think they have to in order to protect future presidents from doing their job effectively. In truth I'm not confident that the court will find for Trump but I can see why it should.

 

Amazing how leftist are all about respecting judicial decisions and how a court of law must be respected. As long as it supports one of their witch hunts, that is.

 

On the contrary. Every prez's decision needs to be guided by the realization he or she will face legal consequences if they violate the law while in office.
Impeachment is not a reliable remedy for enforcement of the law, or abuses of power, as proven by Trump's two impeachments.
Any thoughts on the subject of the thread?

 

witch hunts = "preserving democracy"?
That's good!!

 

So Obama should he charged with murder for killing an american citizen, right? You want to be consistent on the issue right?

 

What is surprising is that they are so obvious. There was no need to even hear the case. But even if they decided that they would, they dragged their feet to decide to hear it, and they extended as far as it could stretch when to decide.

We have to understand that in this Supreme Court, lavish vacations, yacht trips and free Winnebagos have much more weight in the decisions than the rule of law.

People have a right to know if the person they are voting for is a criminal or not. But this Supreme Court doesn't want you to know..... Or, more likely, the owners of the yachts they'll be enjoying their summer vacation in, don't want you to know.

 

They're probably pretty busy crafting the decision to overturn Chevron.

But I'm sure they'll get to this one, too.

 

No merit? Pfft. I've already addressed your claim in another thread. Here's what I said.

LINK: Trump stay petition to SCOTUS - DocumentCloud

 

You okay Lee?

You're not planning an insurrection, are you?

 

I was thinking of basically the same thing. But I was thinking about George W Bush, and his executive privilege, and how anyone including foreigners can sue anyone in America.

 

Btw, the only interest in a "speedy trial" that the courts consider is whether the Defendant wants one or not. There is no "public interest" that is valid enough to override what the Defendant wants. Its funny that you holler about Republicans looking at a calendar while also demanding a "public interest in a speedy trial" knowing that Democrats waited as long as they could in order to arrange the trials in such a way as to attempt to hurt Trumps re-election bid. I've got a nine letter word for you that explains such a stance...hint, it starts with an H and ends with a Y.

 

There is something about the brazen way they did this, right out in the open, that is daunting. The subtext of Trump's appeal was, "Please help me win the election by delaying the trial." To which the conservatives replied, "As you wish."

 

Funny you should ask. What I was thinking is Dems need to take the gloves off. A point I have made before. We have been bringing a demand that the rule of law be enforced to a gunfight. I think, since the Court's conservatives have signaled their allegiance to Don, the liberals need to take some out of the box actions. Like the three liberals issuing a statement telling it as it is. Calling out their conservative colleagues for taking a case that should have been rejected. Making clear to the public the conservative's transparent motivation.

 

For all you know the liberal justices agreed to this hearing.

 

I think that the wheels of justice are not supposed to be driven by an election timeline. In fact, I know they are not. It is not legal for a sitting administration to use a criminal trial aimed at their opponent to impact an election, yet that is precisely what Smith is attempting and it is precisely why you are whining right now.

Your ire is misplaced, to say the least.

 

Are you kidding? Oh wait you mean end any pretense whatever that Democracy fairness of anything else other then raw political power means anything. Sorry but you're a bit late to the party. The Democrats took the gloves off right after Trump came down the elevator.

 

You are projecting. That is what the Supreme Court is doing. Smith is simply doing his job. Smith's job is to prosecute criminals and get them off the streets and into prison as quickly as possible so they don't keep committing criminal acts. REGARDLESS of whether there is an election or not. That should ALSO be the job of the courts. But this Supreme Court believes that politics is more important than making criminals pay for their crimes. It is most definitely a two-tier system

 

So you don't think that Smith has attempted to rush this trial because of the timing of the election?

I cannot imagine that you honestly believe that.

 

Nonsense. Trump legally had 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court, but a lower court ruled he only had 60 days. The Supreme Court held him to that reduced calendar. Additionally, they agreed to hear the case pretty quickly. You realize their calendar is currently booked with other cases who have a right to have their cases heard too, right? If Democrats wanted this case to be heard sooner, why did he wait so long to file it? I think we all know the answer to that one. They gambled that the timeline they attempted to set would have the most interfering impact on the election. With a criminal case they could tie Trump up to sit in court rather than have him on the campaign trail working to defeat their candidate. But their prosecution rests on a novel legal theory that has never been made in the history of our nation which was obviously going to cause additional pre-trial motions and appeals. They gambled wrong. When it comes to such novel theories such as this that have such major importance on the future of our nation, the court isn't a political body that rushes to judgment. They want to having rulings from lower courts filed, they want to give an opportunity to amici to file, etc. The direction of this appeal was not "dragged" in the least. If anything, it was expedited.

 

He's trying to rush this trial because the sooner he can get a criminal off the streets, the more unlikely it will be that criminal will commit more crimes.

Like EVERY prosecutor in the world does!

Of course you can't, because it's exactly the opposite of what I said.

 

See red text! Boom! You just solved the riddle. Damn straight they didn't need to hear it because Presidential immunity was a thing until Trump AND the SC has witnessed the horrors of the democrats weaponized LAWFARE against an innocent guy who's just trying to help people (sad). Stay tuned!

 

Because Trump's tactic has been to delay.

I couldn't care less. The fact is that there is a criminal out on the street, and the Supreme Court is helping to keep him on the street. Would a drug dealer, or a bank thief ever have that privilege?

They shouldn't have heard the case AT ALL! I mean, how in the world is allowing an individual the "right" to commit crimes can even come before a Supreme Court?

Not without lavish vacations, luxury yachts and free Winnebagos for the justices, it wouldn't.

We ALL know how this will be decided. The justices know how this will be decided. There is NO reason for these delays.

Whatever the reason, the case is now filed, and We The People have a right to a prompt decision.

 

So — if the only way a president can be charged is while they are president and through the impeachment process that leaves two glaring questions

If a president hides a crime until they are no longer in office does that mean they are free from all prosecution as they can no longer be impeached?

If a president executes his rivals with the consent of the majority of the house and thus will not be impeached, does that mean he can never be charged with these crimes?

 

Is it OK for any president to order an assassination of political foes?
If they have total immunity.