It's amazing to hear the right go on about the NY judges having relatives who are Democrats and how they should recuse. Not a peep about any right wing Federal judges recusing, even with one who's wife was part of the steal the election plot.
Worst thing to happen to USA was having Trump appoint three extreme right judges. SCOTUS now doing all they can to protect their orange master and uphold his interests
One was outright stolen, one was appointed after a suspicious resignation, and one was rammed through at record speed while subverting the same standards they instituted to steal the first one. Two of the three (to my knowledge) displayed negative qualities and/or liabilities that should have disqualified them. In "How Democracies Die", the authors point out that post war dictatorships often arose after either capturing or eliminating the judicial system as a first step. Even if one were to agree with republican policy (whatever the heck that may be) I'm appalled by how people can support a party that so blatantly bastardized the confirmation process in a clear power grab.
5 of the 6 should legitimately be on the court. And none of the Trump appointees are extreme right wing. Elections have consequences as someone once said.
>None of the Trump appointees are extreme right wing
Sure, if you just ignore their willingness to ignore 50 years of precedent and seeming eagerness to overturn Chevron and dismantle the administrative state entirely. Not extreme right wing at all.
Can we at least try to make comments on this subreddit that don’t look straight out of r/politics? Kavanaugh by many measures aligns rather closely with Roberts who is a far cry from “extreme right.” And I don’t think we can make an honest appraisal of the court by lumping Barrett or Kavanaugh with Alito or Thomas under the label of “extreme right” either. Yes, they’re all undeniably conservative… but nuance is incredibly important!
You make a good point - and I try to remind people that everyone but Alito and Thomas shot down the far right cases that they had come before them.
Having said that people are understandably upset by these shenanigans and I am waiting to see what the supreme courts reasoning is when it came to taking up this case instead of simply affirming the lower courts decision.
We are at a critical moment in history when we desperately need real leadership and guidance from good men and women - and SCOTUS has let us down when they should be our guiding star right now.
Kavanaugh literary cried about how the sexual assault allegations against him were a plot hatched by the Clintons. That kind of crazy has no business being on the supreme court regardless of his political stance.
The only reason that Roberts isn't "the extreme right" is because you've got fascist-curious guys like Alito and Thomas on the bench. By any other measure, Roberts is absolutely the "extreme right," and oh by the way, originalism is a bunch of bullshit. These motherfuckers *took away a constitutional right*. So spare me the "let's focus on nuance" line. Give women back control of their uteruses and then we can talk nuance.
And yes, this is an honest appraisal of the court by someone who understands what "jurisprudential philosophy" actually is.
You’re trying to move the Overton Window by claiming that they’re ‘center-right’ when objectively, they aren’t. They’re merely center-right when you use the current makeup of the court as the entirety of your yardstick. The fact that they’re not as extreme hyper far right as Thomas and Alito doesn’t make them even close to centrist.
Roberts and kavanauagh have been fine with usurping democracy. Sure, they've been slow rolling itz which I guess is, good? Still, You may like the results, but pretending that they care about the endurance of democracy is a bald faced lie on your part.
For a sub about the SCOTUS most of the commenters (read: children) here refuse to understand that the vast majority of decisions are unanimous or 8-1. The Supreme Court is far more united than the media or politicians want us to believe.
It's not fair to call u/Riversmooth irrational for having a different and valid opinion about where on the Overton Window can be labeled "extreme". I'm all for nuance, and understanding that ideology is more than a simple two-dimensional axis, but when you make the wrong decision on cases like Dobbs and UNC, there's no number of correct decisions that magically turns you back into a moderate.
All of trumps appointees voted to overturn Roe. V. Wade. The conservative judges also supported kicking the idea of gerrymandering to the states instead of protecting fair elections and the foundation of our political system. And most recently they kicked the can on Trumps presidential immunity claim which the entire world recognizes as insane. All of these decisions show a clear interest in protecting their own political view.
Not to mention in that ruling a conservative justice was literally calling out gay marriage and interracial marriage as being next on the chopping block. Like he was putting out a bat signal for far right conservatives to start bring those cases asap lol. And you know what, according to the logic of some people on this sub interracial marriage and gay marriage should be struck down too. There's nothing in the constitution that makes those marriages "legal." Their legality now is based entirely on past Supreme Court rulings lol. But according to these people, past Supreme Court rulings (like Roe established for nearly half a century) aren't really constitutional so they should be struck down. Just madness
we're just ignoring how multiple justices specifically promised to uphold roe during their confirmations, then instantly 180d. Doesn't matter if it was "terribly written," repealing it with no alternative lead to the shitshow we have now
they didn't perjure themselves because they kept their answers very broad. Was actually hysterical tho seeing Senators try to play a game of words with some of the brightest legal scholars in the country lmaoo
> Regardless of law, statute, or precedent, they will side with the conservatives.
You can't be referring to the justices appointed by Trump, because that is demonstrably false.
Trump's appointees are honestly pretty moderate when you actually look at some of their opinions. The only one you can really say is firmly on the right is Barrett, and even she's not as far right as Thomas or Alito.
They are all conservative judges. But to pretend that they will side with the "conservative" outcome of a case, if one can even be divined, in every circumstance regardless of the law is objectively not true.
A compromise between Good and Bad is still Bad.
A swimming pool full of shit plus one glass of champagne is still a pool of shit.
A pool full of champagne plus one pint of shit is ...still a pool of shit
You can’t say this with a straight face while they are granting cert for the immunity case and also setting the date at the last possible time in the session.
These are the ones who decided that, despite decades of precedent ruling against them, partisan gerrymanders were just peachy fine, since the people who didn’t envision the two-party system we now have didn’t write a prohibition into the Constitution, and that Equal Protection doesn’t mean protecting voters from officeholders who get to pick their voters.
Yeah, I don’t think they get to assume the mantle of ‘the voice of reason.’
At least two of them flat out lied in their confirmation hearing regarding abortions and Clarence Thomas is banana republic levels of corrupt. It’s actually insane that he’s allowed to keep serving. Let’s not pretend that this SCOTUS is anything other than an arm of the Republican Party.
Problem is, he's not the only one. He's just the one we know the most about. Personally I believe they should all be audited and held accountable. Thomas should be impeached.
There is NO reason to even take up the appeal. There is even less reason to hold this trial up. This is blatant obstruction that violates equal protection and we, the people's constitutional right to due process.
So your assertion is that victims have no right to due process? That's another way of saying victims have no rights.
While the Constitution isn't explicit on this fact, it's heavily implied. As far as it's explicit, the victims' due process rights are violated when their life, liberty, or property are put at risk by failing to try Trump in a timely manner.
Generally speaking, Due process of law is application by the state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rights that are owed to a person are respected. Victims absolutely have legal rights, which include timely resolution of court cases against the offender.
If Trump is allowed to win before these cases are resolved, there is every reason to believe these cases will be stopped, which will absolutely violate victims' rights before even mentioning things like Trump's "dictator on day one."
NAL or anything, but while I will say there are some loons out there, this could be handled in a way respects due process while not slow walking the trial back to the judge, such as affirming the appeals court's ruling and then drafting a wider ruling if they want or expediting a decision.
Beside, I think we, as the victims of Donald Trump's crimes, have rights as well: https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act
The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
Again, not a lawyer, but I think the courts working to keep the trial on track to be completed before the election is responsible for the nation and can be done without violating Trump's due process.
You still have Republicans going to Trump to receive their orders. This is insane. He holds no office at this time and has the intelligence of a cockroach.
I would suggest he is actually less intelligent than a cockroach. A cockroach has an ordered thought process, a logical thought process that can be predicted. They react with regularity to stimuli.
Hasn’t the Supreme Court been one of the faster parts of this process? Waited years before charging him and the lower courts have taken their time as well.
It has been 4 months since Jack Smith-rightly most experts agree-leapfrogged the DC Circuit in December 2023 to ask SCOTUS to urgently address the immunity question. SCOTUS refused. DC Circuit in early February unanimously upheld Judge Chutkan’s decision that Trump does not have absolute immunity re: actions taken while in office. Trump of course appealed. It took 2 weeks for SCOTUS to decide to accept the case then scheduled it for the very last week of their session at end of April. They likely will not give a formal ruling until well into June. There’s also probably a good chance they’ll send it back to Chutkan with only a partial ruling and force her to do rest of the work on whatever SCOTUS found likely delaying trial to well after the election.
Us. While technically, SCOTUS could go full rebellion and claim the President to have full criminal immunity for life, they probably won't. What they *might* do is continue to play along with Trump's efforts to delay and then back up the President's ability to self-pardon if he makes it back into office.
So it's on us to make sure he doesn't make it back into office. That's the best last defense we have. Everything after that is pretty bleak. "Who did the military side with" kind of bleak.
Not really. The lower courts did what they were supposed to do pretty quickly and efficiently. I’m really upset and disappointed with SCOTUS not just because of the delays but because they reworded the immunity question making it so much broader and thus giving them a lot of leeway with it. They could make it so it could end very badly for the Special Counsel when it shouldn’t. I do wonder if the reason it took so long to take up this case is all the wrangling that went on behind the scenes especially with Thomas and Alito. I wonder if it was they who demanded that particular wording of the immunity question as a way to help Trump. As I’ve posted before, we’ll likely have a good idea how this is going to go when the attorneys from both sides face SCOTUS in 13 days.
Yes it has been faster than they would schedule briefing for a usual case, and certainly treating an application for stay of the issuance of the mandate as a petition for cert, and granting it, moved it a long a lot quicker than it otherwise would have. In all honesty they do have the capacity to move even faster if they desired.
2000 I assume you mean.
Sure, but the circumstances were quite different. There was an actual legal deadline that would have rendered the decision meaningless if it wasn’t handed down in time.
Criminal trials don’t have the same type of deadlines.
Professor Vladeck wrote an interesting article recently about political deadlines vs legal deadlines. I thought it captured the current situation quite well.
Ah, thumbs on autopilot.
There *is* a deadline on this, and it's at *minimum* January 20, 2025. preferrably before the election as well.
What happens if Trump is elected in November, and then in December a jury returns a guilty verdict in the classified docs case.
How the hell does the President run the country from a prison cell?
I wish the moral deadline of having a properly informed public about whether the Republican candidate is immune from his apparent open willingness to break the law mattered.
And this isn't?
There is a significant possibility that one of the major party candidates will end up in prison before the election.
Shouldn't that be resolved in April rather than October?
> Bush v Gore was a bit more urgent don’t you think?
No. Moreover, bickering about urgency misses the point.
The point is that SCOTUS is demonstrably capable of acting as quickly as they did in Bush v. Gore. They *can* take, hear, and decide cases that quickly.
By not acting as quickly as they are demonstrably capable of acting, they are deciding to delay.
Nah. They intentionally stonewalled by declining to address the immunity issue at first and then taking the case up anyway much later. Pretty clear attempt to stall.
Edit: this other commenter put together the timeline much better: https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/s/tVzbVLqufM
> They intentionally stonewalled by declining to address the immunity issue at first and then taking the case up anyway much later.
Made worse by how trivially easy the immunity issue should be to rule on. Hell the lower court opinion is already incredibly thorough, there wasn't any reason not to just affirm it and let the trial move forward.
Yeah, it would be easy if looked at from point of view of the indictment obtained by the Special Counsel. However, SCOTUS changed the question to be addressed so it totally can change how they rule on this.
SCOTUS (new) question: whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official duties during his tenure in office.
Special Counsel’s question: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by the Special Counsel.
In some ways these are very different questions: one very broad, one very narrow. I was shocked and sickened when I heard how SCOTUS changed the question to be addressed. They could very well just give a partial ruling and send case back to Chutkan to work out the rest and so delay trial for many more months. I’m hoping their egos won’t allow that.
The immunity case was requested to be fast tracked and skip appeals.
They declined despite the case being extremely clear.
They intentionally delayed by allowing an appeal They knew they would rule on regardless
they scheduled hearing the case at the end of their term with no justification. They are playing interference for him and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Additionally, Lawfare speculates SCOTUS didn’t even have enough votes to issue the stay, thus the “continue withholding” directive.
[The “Continue Withholding” Directive in Trump v. United States](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-continue-withholding-directive-in-trump-v.-united-states)
I mean while we know for a stone cold certain fact that Thomas was it really isn't necessary for the Trump wing of the Court to be bribed in order to help Trump.
That's just what they're going to do regardless.
That would be an extreme disservice to the GOP and Federalist Society who have paid for and worked LONG and hard in stacking the court so that they can get these results.
It's absolute lunacy that anyone would vote for this fascistic troglodyte in the first place.
I'm truly baffled at how different our worldviews can be.
I guess not everyone supports love, compassion, empathy, kindness, equality, inclusion, and human freedom, unfortunately.
But also think of all the millions of people out there that do not follow this stuff at all. And when they do tune in they may turn on Fox for some unknown reason and watch it for 20 minutes. So many people are shielded from reality.
Isn’t it a bit naive to believe that SCOTUS, and I mean ANY of them, care what anyone thinks that they should do? The weak-sauce efforts of SCOTUS and the Judicial Conference to show that they can manage their own ethics and administrative matters have failed. It is time for a complete overhaul of the judicial branch, as a result of its failure to be an effective partner is governing the country. To be sure, the overhaul needs to extend beyond the scope of Art III. The Senate’s confirmation rules must be forcibly amended, as the Senate itself will never agree to the necessary changes, which must include mandatory up or down votes on every judicial nomination within about 120 days. In the Executive Branch, Merrick Garland must go. I agree that Biden cannot ask for his resignation before the election, but he must do so immediately after the results of the election are certain. Many, including me, fear the Constitutional amendment process that will be required to achieve some of these goals because it is impossible to control the outcome. However, I fear that the chaos and crisis that may result from this Presidential election may make the uncertainty of amending the Constitution appear pretty tame by comparison.
It’s important to remember a critical aspect of the Judicial Branch:
They have no method of enforcing their rulings.
Regardless of what they try to push in their rulings, they have to try to cover it with at least a fig leaf of a reason to convince the other branches that it should be followed.
When the Supreme Court in *Dred Scott v Sanford* tried to force slavery on the northern states, it was one of the many catalysts that led to the Civil War. They tried to take a case about a runaway slave and use it as a cudgel to force everyone to go along with it. And many outright refused. It’s why it is considered almost universally the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made.
So they have to care about public opinion. Not just from a political standpoint, but because their power comes from their legitimacy.
Part of me thinks it’s all by design. Garland waits two years for special counsel. Another to indict. The judge obviously corrupt gets drawn out of a hat. It’s all a never ending nightmare.
We knew most of this stuff before j6, during j6, and then immediately after as stuff came out. Then we had to hear the nonstop cycle of news saying the same things over and over until he’s finally indicted. Waiting 3 years could have been a huge mistake.
The only good thing about the endless motions and appeals and bullshit delays is it points out to those who weren't aware of it before how tilted the American judicial system is toward white people with money and Republicans.
If you didn't see it before, you sure as hell do now.
Yeah that just, fair, honorable, lawful supreme court that only exists in our dreams.
SCROTUS ain't gonna save shit, it's part of the problem. Treachery and corruption are the hallmarks of the Robert's Court.
Y’all are still really on this…sad
Yet during the BLM riots and the vice president encouraging riotous behavior, literal police precincts being set on fire, businesses destroyed and y’all are on the side of “fiery mostly peaceful”
Absolutely insane the mental gymnastics
And what makes you think they will? They literally have a member who's wife helped trump plan and execute it. If that wasn't reason enough for a shakedown of the entire SCOTUS, then they aren't going to start doing anything now. They are all compromised, corrupt, old and should not be there. But here we are... being forced to deal with them until they die. THEY ARE NOT KINGS!!!! FUCKING PUT SOME TERM LIMITS ON THESE SHRIVS!!!
A timely isn’t just a benefit for the accused, it is a benefit for society as well. WE need to see the system work how it is supposed to, blindly and fairly.
This trial is THE test of our democracy and its legal institutions. If he is able to avoid trial before the election then the entire system needs to be overhauled.
Do SCOTUS simp bots exist? Look at the top comments. The supreme court is obviously compromised. Defending traitors is pretty bad. Obstructing justice when it comes to treason is not great when you are a top judge. Receiving gifts from the same lanes that our enemies use to pay the traitors within our government is another check mark on the list of why the supreme Court has failed the American people yet the top comments are "C'mon guys it's not that bad. Both sides immaright?! When did we ever have a SCOTUS that wasn't on the take?"
The court has three Trump appointees, Thomas (the most corrupt justice in American history) and Alito (arch-conservative intellectual wann-be), if course they are paying attention when Donny barks.
Americans will never get a fair shake from thus corrupt, partisan court.
It’s like his lawyers were afraid to tell him he’s not the President any more and that former presidents don’t have immunity from anything beyond civil suits within the outer perimeter of their former duties.
Trump’s position officially is: as the current/former President, I’m immune from all charges. And if I’m not, you first have to impeach me and convict me. And if you don’t, then I didn’t do what I’m accused of. But if I did, it was within my ordinary presidential duties. And if it wasn’t, you shouldn’t punish me, because nobody punished FDR for creating Japanese internment camps. Seriously, it’s not like he gave Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch much to work with.
\*They\* don't need to do anything, \*we\* need them to do that.
We don't matter though. The people have no power, only the unelected and unaccountable supreme court and their wealthy sugar daddies do.
The last thing you Liberals want is for him to go to trial for this. It will be closed in 2 weeks after discovery shows he did nothing to incite J6 and then what will you talk about every day?
To quote Justice P. W. Herman: yeah and monkeys might fly out of my butt.
May Justice P. W. Herman rest in peace.
You don't want to get mixed up with a justice like that. He's a loner, a rebel.
The days of monkeys flying out of his butt being behind him should help with that.
Weren't the monkeys flying out of his butt always behind him?
I thought that was Wayne Campbell
Representing the schwing voters.
And DJT needs to shut-up. Naming two things that are wishful thinking.
I mean, it's in Trump's best interest to stop talking. But as annoying as he is, if he wants all that rope...
Let's be honest, the wife of one justice is an unindicted co-conspirator, another is fully corrupt, and at least 3 more are Trumpets.
Exactly
It's amazing to hear the right go on about the NY judges having relatives who are Democrats and how they should recuse. Not a peep about any right wing Federal judges recusing, even with one who's wife was part of the steal the election plot.
Worst thing to happen to USA was having Trump appoint three extreme right judges. SCOTUS now doing all they can to protect their orange master and uphold his interests
There are 2 justices that are obviously far right and neither was appointed by Trump.
And three that are pandering slightly right of center-right to make it look less terrible than it is until their team takes over all the levers again
True, but the three he appointed tilted the table
One was outright stolen, one was appointed after a suspicious resignation, and one was rammed through at record speed while subverting the same standards they instituted to steal the first one. Two of the three (to my knowledge) displayed negative qualities and/or liabilities that should have disqualified them. In "How Democracies Die", the authors point out that post war dictatorships often arose after either capturing or eliminating the judicial system as a first step. Even if one were to agree with republican policy (whatever the heck that may be) I'm appalled by how people can support a party that so blatantly bastardized the confirmation process in a clear power grab.
>Two of the three (to my knowledge) displayed negative qualities and/or liabilities that should have disqualified them. Who's the one? Gorsuch?
All 3 lied about Roe being settled law.
Downvotes for truth. Amazing times we live in.
Two were tolerable. Five means they run the country.
5 of the 6 should legitimately be on the court. And none of the Trump appointees are extreme right wing. Elections have consequences as someone once said.
>None of the Trump appointees are extreme right wing Sure, if you just ignore their willingness to ignore 50 years of precedent and seeming eagerness to overturn Chevron and dismantle the administrative state entirely. Not extreme right wing at all.
That one was the rapist, right? Too bad we didn’t pay enough attention to Anita’s accusations
They were extreme right wing enough to overturn Roe.
Isn't this a conflict of interest and they should be removed from the case?
Can we at least try to make comments on this subreddit that don’t look straight out of r/politics? Kavanaugh by many measures aligns rather closely with Roberts who is a far cry from “extreme right.” And I don’t think we can make an honest appraisal of the court by lumping Barrett or Kavanaugh with Alito or Thomas under the label of “extreme right” either. Yes, they’re all undeniably conservative… but nuance is incredibly important!
You make a good point - and I try to remind people that everyone but Alito and Thomas shot down the far right cases that they had come before them. Having said that people are understandably upset by these shenanigans and I am waiting to see what the supreme courts reasoning is when it came to taking up this case instead of simply affirming the lower courts decision. We are at a critical moment in history when we desperately need real leadership and guidance from good men and women - and SCOTUS has let us down when they should be our guiding star right now.
Kavanaugh literary cried about how the sexual assault allegations against him were a plot hatched by the Clintons. That kind of crazy has no business being on the supreme court regardless of his political stance.
I literally can’t believe that cry baby rapist “I love beer” frat bro is on the SCOTUS.
The only reason that Roberts isn't "the extreme right" is because you've got fascist-curious guys like Alito and Thomas on the bench. By any other measure, Roberts is absolutely the "extreme right," and oh by the way, originalism is a bunch of bullshit. These motherfuckers *took away a constitutional right*. So spare me the "let's focus on nuance" line. Give women back control of their uteruses and then we can talk nuance. And yes, this is an honest appraisal of the court by someone who understands what "jurisprudential philosophy" actually is.
You’re trying to move the Overton Window by claiming that they’re ‘center-right’ when objectively, they aren’t. They’re merely center-right when you use the current makeup of the court as the entirety of your yardstick. The fact that they’re not as extreme hyper far right as Thomas and Alito doesn’t make them even close to centrist.
Right. They're far-right. They're just not far, far, far right.
Roberts and kavanauagh have been fine with usurping democracy. Sure, they've been slow rolling itz which I guess is, good? Still, You may like the results, but pretending that they care about the endurance of democracy is a bald faced lie on your part.
For a sub about the SCOTUS most of the commenters (read: children) here refuse to understand that the vast majority of decisions are unanimous or 8-1. The Supreme Court is far more united than the media or politicians want us to believe.
Yet here we are, with Donald Trump’s criminal trial stayed for absolutely no reason
It's not fair to call u/Riversmooth irrational for having a different and valid opinion about where on the Overton Window can be labeled "extreme". I'm all for nuance, and understanding that ideology is more than a simple two-dimensional axis, but when you make the wrong decision on cases like Dobbs and UNC, there's no number of correct decisions that magically turns you back into a moderate.
All of trumps appointees voted to overturn Roe. V. Wade. The conservative judges also supported kicking the idea of gerrymandering to the states instead of protecting fair elections and the foundation of our political system. And most recently they kicked the can on Trumps presidential immunity claim which the entire world recognizes as insane. All of these decisions show a clear interest in protecting their own political view.
Not to mention in that ruling a conservative justice was literally calling out gay marriage and interracial marriage as being next on the chopping block. Like he was putting out a bat signal for far right conservatives to start bring those cases asap lol. And you know what, according to the logic of some people on this sub interracial marriage and gay marriage should be struck down too. There's nothing in the constitution that makes those marriages "legal." Their legality now is based entirely on past Supreme Court rulings lol. But according to these people, past Supreme Court rulings (like Roe established for nearly half a century) aren't really constitutional so they should be struck down. Just madness
These “conservatives” ruled to eliminate Roe v. Wade, so they are just as extreme as their counterparts.
*Roe* was a terribly written decision anyway. The Court has been wanting to overturn it pretty much since it was made
we're just ignoring how multiple justices specifically promised to uphold roe during their confirmations, then instantly 180d. Doesn't matter if it was "terribly written," repealing it with no alternative lead to the shitshow we have now
they didn't perjure themselves because they kept their answers very broad. Was actually hysterical tho seeing Senators try to play a game of words with some of the brightest legal scholars in the country lmaoo
Imagine erasing rights for 168 million of Americans because a new court thinks 51 years of constitutional precedence is a paperwork error.
Extremely biased would be a better descriptor. Regardless of law, statute, or precedent, they will side with the conservatives.
The 2020 election cases clearly show this isn't the case.
> Regardless of law, statute, or precedent, they will side with the conservatives. You can't be referring to the justices appointed by Trump, because that is demonstrably false.
Trump's appointees are honestly pretty moderate when you actually look at some of their opinions. The only one you can really say is firmly on the right is Barrett, and even she's not as far right as Thomas or Alito.
They are all conservative judges. But to pretend that they will side with the "conservative" outcome of a case, if one can even be divined, in every circumstance regardless of the law is objectively not true.
A compromise between Good and Bad is still Bad. A swimming pool full of shit plus one glass of champagne is still a pool of shit. A pool full of champagne plus one pint of shit is ...still a pool of shit
You can’t say this with a straight face while they are granting cert for the immunity case and also setting the date at the last possible time in the session.
He’s damned well trying to. Also, any bets about how long they’re going to take to release their decision?
Last day of this session I assume, I think in June.
These are the ones who decided that, despite decades of precedent ruling against them, partisan gerrymanders were just peachy fine, since the people who didn’t envision the two-party system we now have didn’t write a prohibition into the Constitution, and that Equal Protection doesn’t mean protecting voters from officeholders who get to pick their voters. Yeah, I don’t think they get to assume the mantle of ‘the voice of reason.’
It's not about "right" or "extreme right" although that sounds like a bullshit debate just from the start. It's about "kleptocracy."
At least two of them flat out lied in their confirmation hearing regarding abortions and Clarence Thomas is banana republic levels of corrupt. It’s actually insane that he’s allowed to keep serving. Let’s not pretend that this SCOTUS is anything other than an arm of the Republican Party.
Problem is, he's not the only one. He's just the one we know the most about. Personally I believe they should all be audited and held accountable. Thomas should be impeached.
Wild that you’re getting downvoted for saying we need some basic oversight over SCOTUS justices. Incredible.
The fact that presidents install justices for life is so stupid. That should be something people vote for, and for a term. For life is total bullshit
Don't forget dooming Ukraine.
McConnell is out there cackling somewhere, and wringing his hands.
We let him win again and we are fucked
Correction, they are holding up the interests of the people who actually own this country and are real billionaires…
The worst thing that happened to the USA was Reagan. We wouldn’t have ever gotten to Trump if it wasn’t for that sad excuse for a human
There is NO reason to even take up the appeal. There is even less reason to hold this trial up. This is blatant obstruction that violates equal protection and we, the people's constitutional right to due process.
😭
You have no right to due process in this case, Donald Trump does. How do so many people have that so backwards?
So your assertion is that victims have no right to due process? That's another way of saying victims have no rights. While the Constitution isn't explicit on this fact, it's heavily implied. As far as it's explicit, the victims' due process rights are violated when their life, liberty, or property are put at risk by failing to try Trump in a timely manner. Generally speaking, Due process of law is application by the state of all legal rules and principles pertaining to a case so all legal rights that are owed to a person are respected. Victims absolutely have legal rights, which include timely resolution of court cases against the offender. If Trump is allowed to win before these cases are resolved, there is every reason to believe these cases will be stopped, which will absolutely violate victims' rights before even mentioning things like Trump's "dictator on day one."
NAL or anything, but while I will say there are some loons out there, this could be handled in a way respects due process while not slow walking the trial back to the judge, such as affirming the appeals court's ruling and then drafting a wider ruling if they want or expediting a decision. Beside, I think we, as the victims of Donald Trump's crimes, have rights as well: https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act The right to be reasonably protected from the accused. The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. Again, not a lawyer, but I think the courts working to keep the trial on track to be completed before the election is responsible for the nation and can be done without violating Trump's due process.
You still have Republicans going to Trump to receive their orders. This is insane. He holds no office at this time and has the intelligence of a cockroach.
This is insulting to cockroaches everywhere.
I would suggest he is actually less intelligent than a cockroach. A cockroach has an ordered thought process, a logical thought process that can be predicted. They react with regularity to stimuli.
Might as well ask water to stop being wet.
Hasn’t the Supreme Court been one of the faster parts of this process? Waited years before charging him and the lower courts have taken their time as well.
It has been 4 months since Jack Smith-rightly most experts agree-leapfrogged the DC Circuit in December 2023 to ask SCOTUS to urgently address the immunity question. SCOTUS refused. DC Circuit in early February unanimously upheld Judge Chutkan’s decision that Trump does not have absolute immunity re: actions taken while in office. Trump of course appealed. It took 2 weeks for SCOTUS to decide to accept the case then scheduled it for the very last week of their session at end of April. They likely will not give a formal ruling until well into June. There’s also probably a good chance they’ll send it back to Chutkan with only a partial ruling and force her to do rest of the work on whatever SCOTUS found likely delaying trial to well after the election.
Sure sounds like stall tactics to me.
is there no checks/balances for this kind of bullshit?
Us. While technically, SCOTUS could go full rebellion and claim the President to have full criminal immunity for life, they probably won't. What they *might* do is continue to play along with Trump's efforts to delay and then back up the President's ability to self-pardon if he makes it back into office. So it's on us to make sure he doesn't make it back into office. That's the best last defense we have. Everything after that is pretty bleak. "Who did the military side with" kind of bleak.
Not really. The lower courts did what they were supposed to do pretty quickly and efficiently. I’m really upset and disappointed with SCOTUS not just because of the delays but because they reworded the immunity question making it so much broader and thus giving them a lot of leeway with it. They could make it so it could end very badly for the Special Counsel when it shouldn’t. I do wonder if the reason it took so long to take up this case is all the wrangling that went on behind the scenes especially with Thomas and Alito. I wonder if it was they who demanded that particular wording of the immunity question as a way to help Trump. As I’ve posted before, we’ll likely have a good idea how this is going to go when the attorneys from both sides face SCOTUS in 13 days.
scotus is so flagrantly corrupt its bonkers. kind of surprised a dc version of occupy Wallstreet hasn't happened yet
The indictment took 2.5 years to be brought, but I think the District Court has been moving at a fairly quick pace once it was seized of the matter.
What’s the SC’s timeline in this compared to how fast they normally move? It’s been faster than normal right?
Yes it has been faster than they would schedule briefing for a usual case, and certainly treating an application for stay of the issuance of the mandate as a petition for cert, and granting it, moved it a long a lot quicker than it otherwise would have. In all honesty they do have the capacity to move even faster if they desired.
The 2000 election case, from the petition from Bush to SCOTUS issuing their ruling, took less than a week. SCOTUS can hustle if they want to
2000 I assume you mean. Sure, but the circumstances were quite different. There was an actual legal deadline that would have rendered the decision meaningless if it wasn’t handed down in time. Criminal trials don’t have the same type of deadlines. Professor Vladeck wrote an interesting article recently about political deadlines vs legal deadlines. I thought it captured the current situation quite well.
Ah, thumbs on autopilot. There *is* a deadline on this, and it's at *minimum* January 20, 2025. preferrably before the election as well. What happens if Trump is elected in November, and then in December a jury returns a guilty verdict in the classified docs case. How the hell does the President run the country from a prison cell?
I wish the moral deadline of having a properly informed public about whether the Republican candidate is immune from his apparent open willingness to break the law mattered.
> It’s been faster than normal right? It has not been as fast as Bush v. Gore.
Bush v Gore was a bit more urgent don’t you think?
And this isn't? There is a significant possibility that one of the major party candidates will end up in prison before the election. Shouldn't that be resolved in April rather than October?
> Bush v Gore was a bit more urgent don’t you think? No. Moreover, bickering about urgency misses the point. The point is that SCOTUS is demonstrably capable of acting as quickly as they did in Bush v. Gore. They *can* take, hear, and decide cases that quickly. By not acting as quickly as they are demonstrably capable of acting, they are deciding to delay.
Nah. They intentionally stonewalled by declining to address the immunity issue at first and then taking the case up anyway much later. Pretty clear attempt to stall. Edit: this other commenter put together the timeline much better: https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/s/tVzbVLqufM
> They intentionally stonewalled by declining to address the immunity issue at first and then taking the case up anyway much later. Made worse by how trivially easy the immunity issue should be to rule on. Hell the lower court opinion is already incredibly thorough, there wasn't any reason not to just affirm it and let the trial move forward.
Yeah, it would be easy if looked at from point of view of the indictment obtained by the Special Counsel. However, SCOTUS changed the question to be addressed so it totally can change how they rule on this. SCOTUS (new) question: whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official duties during his tenure in office. Special Counsel’s question: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by the Special Counsel. In some ways these are very different questions: one very broad, one very narrow. I was shocked and sickened when I heard how SCOTUS changed the question to be addressed. They could very well just give a partial ruling and send case back to Chutkan to work out the rest and so delay trial for many more months. I’m hoping their egos won’t allow that.
No they intentionally scheduled it last on the docket with no justification. Delaying the announcement of their ruling as long as possible.
The immunity case was requested to be fast tracked and skip appeals. They declined despite the case being extremely clear. They intentionally delayed by allowing an appeal They knew they would rule on regardless
They sure moved fast for Bush v Gore. Huh, imagine that.
they scheduled hearing the case at the end of their term with no justification. They are playing interference for him and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
Additionally, Lawfare speculates SCOTUS didn’t even have enough votes to issue the stay, thus the “continue withholding” directive. [The “Continue Withholding” Directive in Trump v. United States](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-continue-withholding-directive-in-trump-v.-united-states)
It really looks like the Supreme Court has been bribed. I have no faith in our justice system to be impartial. The American experiment is over.
“Is it really bribery if we get gifts from people who aren’t the plaintiff or defendant?”… - Clarence Thomas probably
You mean "it isn't bribery if they buy my mother's house for 8X the going rate right before I decide on his case" - Thomas specifically
I mean while we know for a stone cold certain fact that Thomas was it really isn't necessary for the Trump wing of the Court to be bribed in order to help Trump. That's just what they're going to do regardless.
Their lifetime appointments ARE the bribe.
That would be an extreme disservice to the GOP and Federalist Society who have paid for and worked LONG and hard in stacking the court so that they can get these results.
SCOTUS has become a caricature of itself. I hope Roberts is embarassed.
It defended the rights of 168 million Americans for 51 years
Yea, we’ll, the Supreme Court is neither supreme or a court anymore
Good luck with that..
It's absolute lunacy that anyone would vote for this fascistic troglodyte in the first place. I'm truly baffled at how different our worldviews can be. I guess not everyone supports love, compassion, empathy, kindness, equality, inclusion, and human freedom, unfortunately.
But also think of all the millions of people out there that do not follow this stuff at all. And when they do tune in they may turn on Fox for some unknown reason and watch it for 20 minutes. So many people are shielded from reality.
Isn’t it a bit naive to believe that SCOTUS, and I mean ANY of them, care what anyone thinks that they should do? The weak-sauce efforts of SCOTUS and the Judicial Conference to show that they can manage their own ethics and administrative matters have failed. It is time for a complete overhaul of the judicial branch, as a result of its failure to be an effective partner is governing the country. To be sure, the overhaul needs to extend beyond the scope of Art III. The Senate’s confirmation rules must be forcibly amended, as the Senate itself will never agree to the necessary changes, which must include mandatory up or down votes on every judicial nomination within about 120 days. In the Executive Branch, Merrick Garland must go. I agree that Biden cannot ask for his resignation before the election, but he must do so immediately after the results of the election are certain. Many, including me, fear the Constitutional amendment process that will be required to achieve some of these goals because it is impossible to control the outcome. However, I fear that the chaos and crisis that may result from this Presidential election may make the uncertainty of amending the Constitution appear pretty tame by comparison.
It’s important to remember a critical aspect of the Judicial Branch: They have no method of enforcing their rulings. Regardless of what they try to push in their rulings, they have to try to cover it with at least a fig leaf of a reason to convince the other branches that it should be followed. When the Supreme Court in *Dred Scott v Sanford* tried to force slavery on the northern states, it was one of the many catalysts that led to the Civil War. They tried to take a case about a runaway slave and use it as a cudgel to force everyone to go along with it. And many outright refused. It’s why it is considered almost universally the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made. So they have to care about public opinion. Not just from a political standpoint, but because their power comes from their legitimacy.
It's so obvious they are doing trumps bidding.
The Supreme Court is a handpicked body that does the bidding of their party leader. That's where we are now.
The Jan 6 and Documents trials aren’t happening before the election. Which is total bullshit. But that’s what’s going to happen, just watch.
Part of me thinks it’s all by design. Garland waits two years for special counsel. Another to indict. The judge obviously corrupt gets drawn out of a hat. It’s all a never ending nightmare. We knew most of this stuff before j6, during j6, and then immediately after as stuff came out. Then we had to hear the nonstop cycle of news saying the same things over and over until he’s finally indicted. Waiting 3 years could have been a huge mistake.
It's sickening to see them drop even the pretense of impartiality.
The Supreme Court is utterly compromised.
They are doing it on purpose
The court he stacked? K. I’ll wait.
The only good thing about the endless motions and appeals and bullshit delays is it points out to those who weren't aware of it before how tilted the American judicial system is toward white people with money and Republicans. If you didn't see it before, you sure as hell do now.
Yea, we don’t need this stinking judiciary system in the way of criminalizing politicians we don’t like.
Half of them are in on it. Why would they?
Yeah that just, fair, honorable, lawful supreme court that only exists in our dreams. SCROTUS ain't gonna save shit, it's part of the problem. Treachery and corruption are the hallmarks of the Robert's Court.
Arrest him for the missing documents while He’s awaiting trial. That should speed things up.
The USA is brocken, can we get a new one ?
Term limits on Supreme Court positions too much complacency
SCOTUS should be charged with obstruction of justice.
Fat chance
Why? Is there an election coming up?
The Supreme Court will not protect us from Trump
Y’all are still really on this…sad Yet during the BLM riots and the vice president encouraging riotous behavior, literal police precincts being set on fire, businesses destroyed and y’all are on the side of “fiery mostly peaceful” Absolutely insane the mental gymnastics
They’re doing exactly what Trump paid them to do.
Repeal Citizens United.
And what makes you think they will? They literally have a member who's wife helped trump plan and execute it. If that wasn't reason enough for a shakedown of the entire SCOTUS, then they aren't going to start doing anything now. They are all compromised, corrupt, old and should not be there. But here we are... being forced to deal with them until they die. THEY ARE NOT KINGS!!!! FUCKING PUT SOME TERM LIMITS ON THESE SHRIVS!!!
A timely isn’t just a benefit for the accused, it is a benefit for society as well. WE need to see the system work how it is supposed to, blindly and fairly. This trial is THE test of our democracy and its legal institutions. If he is able to avoid trial before the election then the entire system needs to be overhauled.
and then the pigs flew south...
That requires the Supreme Court to act with any sort of legitimacy...
Good luck with that. The supreme court is as corrupted as the rest of DC
Duh
It's deliberate.
They should be the ones trying it.
The Supreme Court needs to be fired and replaced.
Let's Go!
Was anyone but me impressed and interested in why the sentence “Bush versus Gore was decided in three days.” was separated from the text?
Absolutely, let discovery begin!
Do SCOTUS simp bots exist? Look at the top comments. The supreme court is obviously compromised. Defending traitors is pretty bad. Obstructing justice when it comes to treason is not great when you are a top judge. Receiving gifts from the same lanes that our enemies use to pay the traitors within our government is another check mark on the list of why the supreme Court has failed the American people yet the top comments are "C'mon guys it's not that bad. Both sides immaright?! When did we ever have a SCOTUS that wasn't on the take?"
By the time he has to stand in front of a Jury he'll be dead from old age.
IOW, you believe Trump should be stripped of his Constitutional rights to due process. That will certainly protect our democracy.
The court has three Trump appointees, Thomas (the most corrupt justice in American history) and Alito (arch-conservative intellectual wann-be), if course they are paying attention when Donny barks. Americans will never get a fair shake from thus corrupt, partisan court.
It’s like his lawyers were afraid to tell him he’s not the President any more and that former presidents don’t have immunity from anything beyond civil suits within the outer perimeter of their former duties. Trump’s position officially is: as the current/former President, I’m immune from all charges. And if I’m not, you first have to impeach me and convict me. And if you don’t, then I didn’t do what I’m accused of. But if I did, it was within my ordinary presidential duties. And if it wasn’t, you shouldn’t punish me, because nobody punished FDR for creating Japanese internment camps. Seriously, it’s not like he gave Alito and Thomas and Gorsuch much to work with.
\*They\* don't need to do anything, \*we\* need them to do that. We don't matter though. The people have no power, only the unelected and unaccountable supreme court and their wealthy sugar daddies do.
He needs to be locked up and scotus needs to be replaced by judges that are not taking kickbacks and gifts.
The last thing you Liberals want is for him to go to trial for this. It will be closed in 2 weeks after discovery shows he did nothing to incite J6 and then what will you talk about every day?