This is some shitty tea leaf reading. A majority of the court was definitely wasnt sympathetic to trump in the oral arguments. We’re realistically probably going to get a 9-0 against Trump as the court likes to show unity in politically contentious cases.
It’s getting kicked back to the lower courts
I sure hope you’re right.
It’s not gonna be 9-0, because Thomas’s vote is already bought. It’s gonna be 8-1 or 7-2, but written in such a way that it imposes so much work on the lower courts that the three cases affected by it won’t go to trial before the election.
If they put a president such as Trump above the law, even to assassinating a rival… doesn’t that mean that Joe Biden could order a hit on Trump, laugh over Trump’s corpse,
watch as the House votes to impeach him, and relax as the Senate ignores this?Sorry, I just realized they would be giving Biden the golden “get out of jail free” card, so that Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz wouldn’t even have the satisfaction of voting against Biden.
However, I still think Trump will lose this, and it’s because of this:
Problem is they have to rule in June. That means Biden will be emperor months before the election. He could wipe out all the court and the Congress and just stay president forever.
Would the Democratic Party still play by the rules, though? They have a history of supporting norms, even at their own detriment, unlike their opponents.
To be perfectly honest, I’m increasingly certain that I’m going to see either a packing of, or an assassination in, the Supreme Court within the next year. And the Tribunal of Six doesn’t seem to realize that they are the ones who are precipitating the situation, because they’ve discarded any semblance of judicial impartiality, and we can all fucking see it.
I’m reading Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power. It’s enlightening. Just mentioning.
This article is awful and jumps to conclusions without much evidence.
For example, the justices asked Trump’s lawyer a question, the lawyer gave a controversial answer, and moved on to the next question. The article takes this as evidence that the court is somehow siding with Trump?
But the justices did not laugh this argument out of court. Quite the contrary: At least five of the justices seemed to buy into the Trump team’s arguments that…
Judges ask questions to clarify the argument, and stop asking once the arguments are clear. That doesn’t mean they agree with them, it just means they understand them well enough to continue to the next argument.
So either this author doesn’t understand the judicial process, or they have an agenda, and they certainly have an agenda (about page makes this clear). But to make that even more clear, they say this:
This delay all but guarantees that Trump will not stand trial for anything besides the current hush-money case before the 2024 election.
This seems to be what the author is really concerned about: the election.
To be fair, I’m concerned about it too, but I’m not going to attack the courts until they actually make a decision. And yeah, delays suck, especially during an election where you’d like a decision before the campaigns really get going. That said, we should think beyond this one election because the decisions made on this case will set precedent.
Obligatory screw Trump, of course, but we should also respect the institutions we have.
I have found NewRepublic to be this kind of inaccurate more than once.
In fairness, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” applies to drone strikes of foreign nationals too. Bush, Obama, and Trump all fall under that category. While we should be scrutinizing all of our leaders, I feel the argument will be made that it would make all of our presidents open to “frivolous”(their word, not mine) lawsuits for their actions in office.
And it damn well should. But instead it will be “well this is how a US president functions 🤷♂️”
In the military, you are obligated to not follow unlawful orders. Does that go all the way to the CIC?
The argument is being made that at a certain level, the orders automatically becomes legal. Trump is arguing that the president has supreme authority.
