Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

Hume said:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
Must be Russian Collusion or Disinformation.
 
QP! said:
Let me try this again.

It is POSSIBLE a future POTUS may be accused of something that MAY or MAY NOT be a crime and is not as black and white as this is. For instance, as is often said, if a POTUS orders a drone strike that ends up killing an American citizen.

Currently there is NOTHING that says what acts CAN and CANNOT be cited for prosecution, so some crazy Prosecutor in Texas might go after Biden on something you and i agree SHOULD NEVER be charged.

So instead of just dealing with this one issue, where both you and i can agree it is clear, that Trump DID commit crime, and not addressing all the other potential issues that MIGHT arise in the future, the SC wants to deal with them ALL now and settle the issue.

So...

Step 1 : they will force the definition of WHAT IS and WHAT IS NOT a presidential act..

Step 2 : Trump charges will THEN move forward as not presidential acts.

Again you can say, 'i only want Step 2 and do not care if presidential acts are defined for the future or not' and i might agree, but we are not the SC.,
Click to expand...
But based upon the Originalism and Textualism this Court has used to rationalize their decisions on other issues they shouldn’t be thinking of the future, their questions showed a contradictory approach to this case which raises skepticism
 
archives said:
But based upon the Originalism and Textualism this Court has used to rationalize their decisions on other issues they shouldn’t be thinking of the future, their questions showed a contradictory approach to this case which raises skepticism
Click to expand...
Exactly. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a law school debate.
 
archives said:
But based upon the Originalism and Textualism this Court has used to rationalize their decisions on other issues they shouldn’t be thinking of the future, their questions showed a contradictory approach to this case which raises skepticism
Click to expand...
This current court has NEVER been consistent in how they apply their stated logic. One day they are strict textualists and the next they ignore the clear text and create a new doctrine.

We are not debating that and i agree with that.

That aside, Courts, and especially the Supreme Court, often do use certain cases and expand them to address Original Major Questions, which may come back in the future, instead of addressing each as a one off, wherein each and every instance is adjudicated individually and with no framework.

It is not wrong for the SC to think there should be crystal clear definitions defining what is and is not prosecutable.

We currently have calls out, by Maga extremists in congress for every Republican prosecutor to find a reason to prosecute Biden.

Maybe you and Hume believe Magats are too honorable to do that just to get negative headlines against Biden for the Trump campaign to use and distort.

if the Supreme Court creates a clear rule of what type of things can and cannot be prosecuted that protects not just Biden but all POTUS from Magat type mischief in the future.

So you and Hume can say 'we do not care about and want the SC to stay tight on this issue', and i might agree, but it is not our choice. The SC can and does expand things at times so as to create a governing rule to avoid future one offs in the same vein, coming back, time and again.
 
Hume said:
For those looking for the hidden hand of politics in what the Supreme Court does, there’s plenty of reason for suspicion on Donald Trump’s as-yet-decided immunity case given its urgency. There are, of course, explanations that have nothing to do with politics for why a ruling still hasn’t been issued. But the reasons to think something is rotten at the court are impossible to ignore.

www.nytimes.com

Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case

It shouldn’t take so long for the justices to consider an outlandish claim.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
So you would be in favor of the SC taking up the NYC 34 felony count case appeal immediately because it impacts the election. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top