By DUARDO PAZ-MARTINEZ
McALLEN, Texas |...What to make of the Supreme Court's hearings on Donald Trump's claim of presidential immunity in that Capitol Building riot? On its face, the ongoing hearings are a good example of Democracy at work, only, wild as it may sound, some justices are not thinking that way.
Five justices - Chief John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch - are looking in another direction, one that will help oft-indicted Trump.
The nation's high court will weigh its three options and issue a ruling soon, or much later. That has some meaning to Trump.
First, it could grant Trump his immunity, which the court will not do. Secondly, it could delay its ruling so that Trump's insurrection trial could not happen before the November General Election, one in which Trump will be the Republican Party nominee.
This from thenation.com about the third option: [ Remanding the case back to the DC Circuit. This is the option that causes maximum delay of Trump’s reckoning, allowing him to avoid it entirely if he wins the next election, while still preserving the court’s ability to say that blanket immunity is unconstitutional later down the line, should Trump lose. Remand is therefore the best possible option for the Republican justices if they want to see a Republican president elected in November — and at oral arguments, most of them signaled that’s exactly what they’re going to do. ]
It strikes me that in all possible rulings, Trump comes out ahead.
Are we okay with that? The five justices in question were all appointed by Republican presidents, two of these five by Trump, himself. That has to mean for something. I mean, isn't ideology a prerequisite?
Once not that long ago, it was generally believed that the U.S. Supreme Court was above politics, that it did its work without fealty to anyone, presidents included. Richard M. Nixon ring a bell? He didn't even think about trying to go for presidential immunity before he resigned and Gerald Ford pardoned him.
These days, more and more, the Supreme Court is an activist court.
That it grabbed for a shot at the immunity claim after an Appeals Court ruled Trump absolutely did not have immunity is a clear clue. No, Maria, this Republican-led court was going to insist on getting the last say. That is where we are as April ends and May falls on us. A ruling is not expected until summer, or maybe much later - both helping Trump delay the insurrection trial until after the election.
My take is this: Okay, go ahead and help the guy, but what of your reputation? You may be fine if he wins. If Trump loses, you'll only look like used and abused partisan hacks.
And, by the way, you're about there...
-30-
I have zero confidence in this supreme court. They will aid Trump. Bet on it.
ReplyDeleteEcho that.
DeleteHow hard is it to determine if something was legal or illegal. If a presidents actions were illegal then he needs to held accountable. Who cares if they were public or private crimes. If the court can't answer this question, then what is to prevent any future president from committing crimes?
ReplyDeleteAmerica works best when governed from the center. Sometimes a little left is ok and sometimes a little right works as well.
DeleteHow can he be faithful to the laws, when he's broken them all and truly believes he can do any and everything.
ReplyDeleteHe's above the law.
DeleteTrump made this very simple. He’s asking for TOTAL immunity. That’s all they need to decide on. Instead they’re getting into too many hypothetical situations. Let those courts decide them as they come about. This is simply about one key issue of total immunity and they could have made that decision in December when Jack Smith brought it to them. Now we’re in this mess.
ReplyDeleteBiden needs to expand the SC to 13 justices for 13 circuits, it's that simple and he should do this Jan 22nd, 2025. This will save our Democracy and restore what has been taken away, and more, like overturning Citizens United.
ReplyDeleteWe will still stop the STINK!!@ this Nov vote wise vote smart, vote BLUE
ReplyDeleteHey read this - Republican South Dakota governor, a potential Trump running mate, writes in new book about killing her dog. WHAT!!!!
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court may hold this opinion until the last minute, because if they give Trump the win on official acts, they will destroy what is left of their credibility. You should know that they have already found judges cannot be sued for criminal conduct while acting as a judge but can be criminally prosecuted. Even former federal Judge Kent went to jail for acts done in his chambers. They are going to have to say judges can go to jail for official acts, but not the president. This is a challenge since immunity is judge made law. Before the 11th Amendment immunity did not exist for any state actors. The Supreme Court was clear, we have no King. The 11th Amendment only applied between a citizen of one state using another state, and then the Supreme Court ignores the plain language of the 11th Amendment and extended out to just about all state actors, although in some cases it is only qualified. That is where they are going with Trump. They will remand for the trial court to sort out official and private acts and to detail the evidence for each. Trump will then appeal and a new Supreme Court will decide if the trial court got it right. In the time it takes for this to go up through the system again the election could be over. If Biden wins, he could get two new appointments replacing pro Trump Justices. They can then reverse the decision which will come in late June or early July.
ReplyDeleteOdd number of justices does not work, not in a 2-party system
DeleteThe conservative originalists on the supreme court struck down Roe because they found no right to privacy explicitly outlined in the constitution. However, they are trying to create immunity out of their interpretation. How has the supreme court not turned political?
DeleteThe Supreme Court is a complete joke and Congress knows it. In 1868, in Texas v. White they found Texas never left the union because they were bound for ever to the union and therefore Texas the state had to pay on the confederate bonds. If this is true which it is not, just judge made law, then why did Congress have to vote to readmit Texas to the Union in 1870?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as an Irish citizen, we laugh at the MAGA king, and his lemmings even more.
ReplyDeleteWhile Biden is someone to be proud of as an Irish American.
The most convincing evidence that we are living in a simulation is that the Supreme Court of the United States is currently trying to figure out if a U.S. President must abide by U.S. law.
ReplyDeleteUsed to be that all citizens were equal under the law.
DeleteGreat example, Faculty. Teach those kids that rules and laws don't apply to them. Tell me again how academia isn't the problem. (Maybe Trump to blame? He's above the law, right?)
ReplyDeleteIn this country, you have the absolute right to protest and demonstrate.
DeleteCollege protests are part of our culture. We have freedoms and, sadly, we are enjoying them less and less. Don't give up your freedoms. Give up one and they'll want them all!
DeleteThe level of intellectual curiosity and passion among us is contagious, igniting a spark within.
ReplyDeleteMore trouble with comments feature...
ReplyDeleteImagine wishing your wife a happy birthday at your affair trial. what a guy. LOL
ReplyDeleteHe shouldn't have committed crimes
DeleteSo student protesters belong in jail. Really? Why do i say no.
ReplyDelete"There is nothing more fragile than civilization." - Havelock Ellis
ReplyDelete