Trump's Immunity Claim
 

"Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ase-rcna139026

I'm disappointed they took it. It isn't worth consideration. It's not in the Constitution.

Pointless, abject cowardice on the part of the Court particularly in light of the fact that an Appeals Court already rules unanimously there was no such immunity. It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.

Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand. I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial, verdict and possible appeal. This case presents some issues that have never been adjudicated. Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity.

This could be classified under 'be careful what you wish for'. That a president be prosecuted for actions taken that are part of his/her duties is one thing but what Trump is saying is that he can commit any acts totally unrelated to the office of the president. If the Supreme Court were to rule in his favor, that would mean 'crooked Joe Biden' would be able to do anything he wanted to Trump and not be prosecuted since he (Biden) is the current president.

Trump has already stated publicly on a number of occasions that he would do this, so what's the complaint? That only he can engage in this kind of behavior but anyone else elected cannot?

Could have been done except that Trump has been doing everything possible to delay the trial.

I'm mystified that the SCOTUS made such an odd decision. I suppose it's not surprising given the fact that they're a conservative bunch. Jack Smith now has a poor chance of trying Trump prior to November 5, 2024. I'm hopeful Trump will be convicted soon in New York.

Kim Wehle, constitutional law scholar at U Baltimore, discusses this issue informingly on NPR's ‘Morning Edition’: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12347...ution-in-april .

Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.

Years ago I believe that Gorsuch ruled against absolute immunity. So if he follows his own precedent then he should rule against Trump.

I'm unaware of any recent case involving "absolute immunity" for a President. That doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

Edit: Presidents were given absolute immunity for "political" acts in the case that established judicial revue by scotus - Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Roberts is a snake-in-the-grass. He won't come down on the losing side in one of the most important cases in SCOTUS history. I look for either a 6-3 decision to reject or 5-4 to affirm.

It's a nice link but Wehle essentially blames Garland for his lack of urgency in appointing a Special Prosecutor. Smith gathered huge amounts of 'testimony' over 2.5? years with a huge budget. Shouldn't the defense be given equal opportunity of discovery?

I am of two minds with regard to the recent shenanigans of the SCOTUS: Overturning Roe V. Wade and enabling a criminal president.
I am appalled that women have lost the right to make choices with their bodies and I find it awful that the SCOTUS is supporting Trump. On the other hand all of this is your fault. Voters elected republican presidents, congressmen, and senators. What did you think was going to happen?
If you're pissed off with the current state of affairs then vote the bastards out. It's your choice.

The SCOTUS has already ruled on "Article 2" many times in the past two hundred years. They concluded for example that he was immune from civil liability, but this is the first time that a political opponent has tried to put a President in prison. Nevertheless, the precedent is already clear.

The President is a one-person Branch of Government, given powers and responsibilities afforded to no other person. He must sometimes act when he has no "time" and "incomplete information." Yet he must sometimes act boldly. If another Branch, or a State or a County, could threaten him with prison for making a decision or a statement that they did not approve of, then of course they would do exactly that ... endlessly. And so it would be utterly impossible for the President to govern. Very soon, no one in his right mind would volunteer to hold the position, and "Article 2" would fall apart.

The Constitution does provide for "impeachment," requiring a super-majority of both Houses of Congress. And the SCOTUS has ruled that "successful impeachment" is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution. (The Constitution carefully states that impeachment is not a criminal indictment.) So, the President is not "above the law," but the entirely unique nature of his position is recognized.

There are over 2,000 counties in this country who can convene a Grand Jury. So, it only takes seven people and a zealous prosecutor. Each and every time the President made a decision, some Grand Jury somewhere would immediately indict him or her. At 12:01 PM on the end of the term, this President would promptly be arrested and would face more than 1,000 years in prison. You can easily see where this is going ... and, politics being what it is, there is no doubt that this is exactly what would occur.

It's a court, not a political opponent and the defendant isn't a president.

Your argument gives the president the right to assassinate his political rivals, as his lawyers have argued he has.

What if he has senators he suspects of 'disloyalty' assassinated?

I missed this decision. I've heard it debated recently.

But the president and a third+1 of the surviving senators are.

Just because a grand jury indicts doesn't put anyone in prison.

Do you want Biden to exercise these powers? Obama? Clinton?

NPR's Nina Totenberg discusses the issue usefully on 'All things considered': https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12350...munity-hearing
Lee Kovarsky expresses an opinion worth considering in 'Trump Should Lose. But the Supreme Court Should Still Clarify Immunity.': https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/o...-immunity.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...immunity-case/ is also thoughtful

I surmise that you already know “your intended outcome,” and all that I can say is: “be careful what you wish for.”

Donald Trump is “the ultimate evil.” Uh huh. Don’t you know how utterly bloodthirsty “politics” can be? Only one person at a time gets to be “President,” and he is surrounded by ever-envious hangers-on who simply want to take him down.

There would be no “Presidential Libraries.” There would only be prison cells equipped with tombs.

Going forward, it wouldn’t simply be any particular Officeholder: it would become The Office, Itself. Because now you need only eight people – seven jurors and one ambitious prosecutor – to “bring down a President.” And you can now multiply this over two thousand times. The desire would be irresistible. It would begin on day two of his-or-her term.

Every “podunk county, anywhere” would promptly jump on, and millions of “not-so-secret dollars” would be spent to “encourage” all of them. (Think: “color revolution.”)

Please don’t try to suggest to me that “actual human politics” is not PRECISELY like this …