The former president is now highly unlikely to stand trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case before November

The Supreme Court handed Donald Trump a massive victory on Wednesday by agreeing to rule on whether he is immune from prosecution for acts committed while he was president. The court will hear arguments on April 22 and won’t hand down a decision until June — which means it’s unlikely a trial in the Justice Department’s election interference case will commence before the election. If Trump wins the election, he’ll of course appoint an attorney general who will toss the case, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules this summer.

By Wednesday night, Trumpland was celebrating.

“Literally popping champagne right now,” a lawyer close to Donald Trump told Rolling Stone late on Wednesday.

  • @agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    279 months ago

    The second they rule in Trump’s favor, Biden basically has free reign to do whatever the fuck he wants.

    Well, that’s the thing, they won’t rule in Trump’s favor. The lower court thoroughly destroyed Trump’s case, to the point where the SCOTUS shouldn’t taken the case in the first place and let the lower court decision stand. There’s no legal support at all for Trump’s claims. This all makes it pretty clear the conservative majority on the court merely wanted to toss Trump a bone with a delay and increase his chances of getting back in office.

      • @RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        89 months ago

        You know how parents would say “because I said so” without any real justification for making a decision and there was nothing you could do about it?

        That’s the SCOTUS. Literally no oversight and they can do whatever the fuck they want.

        Somehow the founders didn’t see that as being a problem.

          • @SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            59 months ago

            No one wanted to “politicize” impeachment so Congress just played ball with the Supreme Court and would reword laws till the current batch of justices gave a thumbs up. Or wait for the slant of the court to change and try again. This has, of course, put us in our current predicament. We should be watching the impeachment proceedings for Alito and Thomas, at the very least, right now, but instead we are going to see the hubby of an insurrectionist rule on wether insurrection is okay or not if a sitting president does it. All while that justice and another pocket millions in “gifts” from right wing fascist Nazis.

      • @agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        59 months ago

        And what forces SCOTUS to judge based on “legal support”

        Nothing, other than wanting to have an historically favorable legacy. But ignoring that, despite Alito and Thomas being unabashed GOP operatives, ruling in favor of immunity would be a stretch for even them. Undoubtedly all the justices realize that if they affirm presidential immunity for life, a president can Seal Team Six one or all of the justices, on a whim. A ruling to affirm immunity would neutralize the power of the court, something an even unethical and selfish justice would want to prevent.

        • @NightAuthor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          39 months ago

          But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

          My gut says yes, they’re smart, some of them just have questionable ethics.

          • @agentsquirrel@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            But is it safe to assume they’re smart enough to realize that?

            Absolutely. One thing I’ve learned over the years is that intelligence and ethics are two totally separate qualities. I’ve listened to SCOTUS televised proceedings a few times and the level of mastery of the law and history, and the lines of thinking and arguments are quite stunning. I say this equally of both the conservative and liberal members of the court. But that’s not to say they don’t steer the arguments and decisions in a way that aligns with their ideology and/or their political allies.