SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Trump's Immunity Appeal - No Rush, Calendars for April

[evoeth]

In a surprise move, the Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump's appeal for immunity, but calendars it so late that it is now almost certain that the January 6th case (the most important one) will not be held before the election. Surely, our country is going well.

Court watchers widely believed that SCOTUS would not take up the case, since Trump's entire argument is absurd: a president cannot be tried for a crime except by congress.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity/index.html

 

[wing2000]

Some court watchers speculated the SCOTUS might want the last word on the matter. I can't possibly imagine what value they will add to the existing ruling by the DC Court of Appeals.

 

[wing2000]

By the USSC waiting weeks to answer Trump's appeal and setting a late April hearing date, Jack Smith's J6 case has now effectively been stayed for 6 months. With the today's decision to hear the case and cotinue the stay, it's now unlikely the Jan 6th trial will occur prior to the election in November.

 

[JSRG]

Some court watchers speculated the SCOTUS might want the last word on the matter. I can't possibly imagine what value they will add to the existing ruling by the DC Court of Appeals.

The question of presidential immunity is an interesting constitutional question that the Supreme Court hasn't really settled (US v. Nixon was only concerning civil suits), so wanting a decision from the SCOTUS that offers universal precedent rather than the lesser precedent of the appeals court makes some sense.

 

[wing2000]

The question of presidential immunity is an interesting constitutional question that the Supreme Court hasn't really settled (US v. Nixon was only concerning civil suits), so wanting a decision from the SCOTUS that offers universal precedent rather than the lesser precedent of the appeals court makes some sense.

If that is the SCOTUS postion, why not accept Smith's petition to bypass the appeals court this past December?

 

[JSRG]

If that is the SCOTUS postion, why not accept Smith's petition to bypass the appeals court this past December?

The SCOTUS regards itself for the most part as a court of review and doesn't like to touch cases prior to the lower court ruling on it. Smith's request to bypass the appeals court was, as I understand it, a very unusual request and not something that would typically be accepted by the Court.

 

[Fantine]

Thank heavens NY is outside federal jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has just lowered its 17% approval rating with this postponement.

Americans want to know the truth about this candidate--or fir most, to see the truth confirmed by a jury.

Thomas needs to resign. Given his wife's position during 1/6 he should recuse himself.

She proclaims her involvement on her FB page.

Just another scandal to add to Thomas' long list.

 

[A2SG]

Thank heavens NY is outside federal jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has just lowered its 17% approval rating with this postponement.

Americans want to know the truth about this candidate--or fir most, to see the truth confirmed by a jury.

Thomas needs to resign. Given his wife's position during 1/6 he should recuse himself.

She proclaims her involvement on her FB page.

Just another scandal to add to Thomas' long list.

John Oliver has a sweet deal for Clarence, should he choose to accept it.

-- A2SG, but I still think Harlan Crow will outbid him.....

 

[JSRG]

The Supreme Court has just lowered its 17% approval rating with this postponement.

Where did you get that number from? The most recent polling I can find puts the Supreme Court at a 40% approval rating. Not particularly high, but a lot better than 17%. For point of comparison, its approval rating is about on par with Biden's approval rating and is quite a bit better than congress's approval rating (22.5%).

 

[Fantine]

You are right...but still, that means that 60% of Americans justifiably disapprove of a Supreme Court who, regardless of its politics (and there's plenty of that), has 3 justices who've received enormous financial benefits from wealthy conservative multi-millionaires--and a Chief Justice who, after huge pressure to do the right thing, sets up his own ethics code--with no penalties for offenses.

John Roberts' wife was a corporate recruiter for top law firms in Washington, DC right after Roberts was confirmed--earning $8 million in "commissions" for placements. Was she the most qualified person in the U.S. to do this? Or did conservative law firms with cases before the court find it appealing to give his wife huge commissions for recruiting lawyers--amounting to $8 million?

Clarence Thomas' list of gifts--from expensive trips to $72K a year tuition for his grandnephew's education to purchasing his mother's house, renovating it, and letting her live rent free--along with his wife's brazen collusion with 1/6 domestic terrorists--should result in his getting the boot.

Alito's expensive fishing trips pale by comparison...

 

[Green Sun]

Some court watchers speculated the SCOTUS might want the last word on the matter. I can't possibly imagine what value they will add to the existing ruling by the DC Court of Appeals.

The sole goal is the republican SCOTUS judges attempting to delay the final verdict to after the election - Which, if Trump won, would cause the DoJ policy of not prosecuting a Sitting President/President Elect to theoretically prevent the case from continuing.

The entire point, as the Republican Party (and the Republican Judges) have shouted from the rooftop for decades, is to protect themselves and no one else.

This is a blatant, horrifically political move from the Republican Judges of SCOTUS. Beyond depraved.

 

[wing2000]

The SCOTUS regards itself for the most part as a court of review and doesn't like to touch cases prior to the lower court ruling on it. Smith's request to bypass the appeals court was, as I understand it, a very unusual request and not something that would typically be accepted by the Court.

Yes, it was an unusual request. However, the circumstances certainly justify the SCOUTUS accepting such a petition. We have a former POTUS charged with serious Federal crimes related directly to the last election. The American citizens deserve to have these crimes ejudicated prior to the next election. Chief Justice Roberts certainly understands what is at stake here.
Once more, there is nothing "interesting" about a former POTUS claiming absolute immunity. It's a ridiculous notion that was soundly put to rest by the Court of Appeals ruling.

What more can the SCOUTUS add as a legal matter?

 

[JSRG]

The sole goal is the republican SCOTUS judges attempting to delay the final verdict to after the election - Which, if Trump won, would cause the DoJ policy of not prosecuting a Sitting President/President Elect to theoretically prevent the case from continuing.

The entire point, as the Republican Party (and the Republican Judges) have shouted from the rooftop for decades, is to protect themselves and no one else.

This is a blatant, horrifically political move from the Republican Judges of SCOTUS. Beyond depraved.

Or perhaps the goal is simply to give a definite answer on an important constitutional question that the Supreme Court has never actually given any decision regarding, regarding to what extent if any the president has immunity from criminal prosecution. If I were on the Supreme Court I'd definitely have interest in wanting to give a clearer answer on the question.

Also, you complain about the "Republican Judges of SCOTUS" doing this. This is interesting, given we have no idea which justices voted to take up the case. So either you have special insider information from people working at the court, or you're just engaging in blatant speculation.

 

[wing2000]

Will the court issue a decision with similar speed in the immunity case?

In United States v. Nixon, the 1974 decision that ordered President Richard M. Nixon to comply with a subpoena for audiotapes of conversations with aides in the White House, the court moved quickly, granting the special prosecutor’s request to bypass the appeals court a week after it was filed.

The court heard arguments about five weeks later — compared with some seven weeks in the immunity case. It issued its decision 16 days after the argument, and the trial was not delayed.

The case led to Nixon’s resignation in the face of mounting calls for his impeachment.

Pace of Supreme Court Immunity Case Shadowed by Looming Election

In an ordinary case, the justices’ decision to hear arguments in April might seem a sober compromise. But the electoral calendar and Donald J. Trump’s hope for delays prompt questions.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Green Sun]

Or perhaps the goal is simply to give a definite answer on an important constitutional question that the Supreme Court has never actually given any decision regarding, regarding to what extent if any the president has immunity from criminal prosecution. If I were on the Supreme Court I'd definitely have interest in wanting to give a clearer answer on the question.

Also, you complain about the "Republican Judges of SCOTUS" doing this. This is interesting, given we have no idea which justices voted to take up the case. So either you have special insider information from people working at the court, or you're just engaging in blatant speculation.

I think it is a very safe bet to imagine that, out of the four judges needed to bring a case, at least one is a conservative justice, based off of the breakdown of the court right now.

Do you really think the three liberal justices on the court would want to hear a case that the appeals court pretty squarely tucked away, that only benefits Trump in them hearing? That the three of them will without a doubt rule against him on? I think even out of the conservative justices, the only one I think has a better than 50% chance of agreeing with Trump is Thomas.

The claim that there's an "important constitutional question" is doing a lot of lifting here. Like wing2000 said, what's left for SCOTUS here to actually add? Trump's team claims absolute immunity, which seems to me to be an absolutely absurd thing to grant anyone. You might recall the earlier case made by trump's lawyers, that under their view, a President could assassinate their political rivals, and remain immune to prosecution forever if Congress didn't impeach (which raises the question of what stops the President from just assassinating those that would vote to remove him from office.)

And just like wing2000 said, the court realizes that timing on here is critical... So, why are they waiting over a month for the hearing? Nixon's case was heard faster. Do you think we'll actually get a ruling quickly, so the trial can resume?

If you believe that the conservatives of the court has a genuine interest in this case, with the urgency and seriousness of the parties involved then I'd think that they would have decided to hear it back in December, to ensure it things happen as quickly as possible.

But it seems to me like they seem more interested in just helping Trump with his traditional strategy of "delay, delay, delay" that he has done throughout his career when it comes to court.

As a aside, Thomas should absolutely recuse himself from this case - There's a horrific conflict of interest, considering his wife is part of the group that helped organize the election interference that Trump is being charged with. I think it's pretty obvious based off of his past actions and words he won't, but that's just the conservative norm at this rate.

 

[NotreDame]

The sole goal is the republican SCOTUS judges attempting to delay the final verdict to after the election - Which, if Trump won, would cause the DoJ policy of not prosecuting a Sitting President/President Elect to theoretically prevent the case from continuing.

The entire point, as the Republican Party (and the Republican Judges) have shouted from the rooftop for decades, is to protect themselves and no one else.

This is a blatant, horrifically political move from the Republican Judges of SCOTUS. Beyond depraved.

The sole goal is the republican SCOTUS judges attempting to delay the final verdict to after the election -

How do you possibly know the above as a fact? After all, you treat your statement as a fact. Upon what then do you base your statement?

 

[Green Sun]

How do you possibly know the above as a fact? After all, you treat your statement as a fact. Upon what then do you base your statement?

As stated earlier, they could have chose to hear the case back in December. Why wait?

Nixon's case was viewed as serious enough for them to hear right away, without waiting for the appeals court. One would think a former president facing actual charges, a significant step up from Nixon's civil case, would be even more serious.

 

[NotreDame]

As stated earlier, they could have chose to hear the case back in December. Why wait?

Your claim, your burden, so you’ll need to establish the refusal to accept the case in December was caused by the “sole goal to delay the final verdict to after the election.”

The fact alone of “could have chose to hear the case back in December” is a mere statement of fact, of what happened, what occurred, and doesn’t itself establish “sole goal to delay the final verdict to after the election.”

 

[Green Sun]

Your claim, your burden, so you’ll need to establish the refusal to accept the case in December was caused by the “sole goal to delay the final verdict to after the election.”

The fact alone of “could have chose to hear the case back in December” is a mere statement of fact, of what happened, what occurred, and doesn’t itself establish “sole goal to delay the final verdict to after the election.”

Then we'll disagree. Their actions speak loudly.

I don't believe the conservative members, one of which is married to someone who was involved in the election interference directly, are acting in good faith here, frankly.

They gave up the opportunity to hear it in December, they gave a long deadline for the responses to the appeal, even as Smith was urging them for emergency consideration. They waited another 9 days to give a one page "yes we'll hear it" even after they got the info. They've pushed for a later hearing date than Smith requested, almost two months away.

Maybe the true indicator of intent will come down to the date the rule. Will they give a ruling right away? Nixon's took 16 days from the hearing to be decided. Are the conservative justices going to wait until the last day of the term to give a ruling, almost assuredly making it so that it cannot take place before the election? I wouldn't put it past them, based on this act.

 

[Green Sun]

As a aside, Thomas should absolutely recuse himself from this case - There's a horrific conflict of interest, considering his wife is part of the group that helped organize the election interference that Trump is being charged with. I think it's pretty obvious based off of his past actions and words he won't, but that's just the conservative norm at this rate.

For some comparison, during United States v. Nixon:

Justice William H. Rehnquist recused himself due to his close association with several Watergate conspirators, including Attorneys General John Mitchell and Richard Kleindienst, prior to his appointment to the Court.