• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      for what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure that James is not actually on trial. it was a hearing to weigh if improper things happened.

      and it sounds like she tore their best witness to shreds.

      (Edit- fixed to the right name. They both deserve credit, though. Rockstars.)

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    No oral arguments until late April. This looks like cover for a delay that will push trial past the election.

    • nxdefiant@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s a win win for the SC.

      He wins the election, they can say “Whelp, makes no sense to rule on this until he’s out of office again” and hope he dies before dick tatering his way into a third term.

      He loses the election, they can decide to rule either way depending on how much grease he’s got left in his pockets with no worries about repercussions while they also hope he dies.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Oral arguments this April would generally imply they release their ruling in or by June though before going to recess. Might still be time to get the trial done if they follow their typical schedule.

    • return2ozma@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yup. CNN just said these case is typically take up to 2 years. Even if it’s fast tracked it’ll be at least a year.

  • nxdefiant@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I can’t imagine a ruling in his favor that doesn’t give Biden the power to also commit whatever crimes he wants, but then again I’m not creative enough in the “moral degeneracy” department to qualify as a Republican supreme court justice.

    They’ll probably rule something asinine like “using a phone isn’t treason” and, blinders firmly in place, blow right by the actual question.

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I changed it because I was actually confused if this was about Jan 6th or about the Georgia case. Either way, they’re going to have to argue that what he did isn’t a crime because (whatever nonsense reason). There’s no way they can argue a president is immune to prosecution for crimes, and for that reason alone, the kkkonservative justices are absolutely going to skirt the actual question and dismiss the case based on “not a crime”.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      So technically the only question before the court is if a President has immunity for official acts.

      So I have a feeling what’s going to happen is SCOTUS is going to wait until June/July and rule Presidents have immunity for only official acts and kick this back to the District Court. The District Court will then most likely rule these weren’t official acts so there’s no immunity. This is a question of law so Trump will immediately appeal buying more delay. At this point it’s absolutely not going to make it to trial before election day.

      So it all comes down to A) Biden wins and the cases go on to trial – most likely Trump is convicted of something at least. B) Trump wins and either pardons himself or otherwise ends the prosecutions and it’s never decided one way or the other whether these were unofficial acts.

  • Deello@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hypothetically speaking, let’s say Biden publicly assassinates Trump. Takes credit for it and everything. Does that mean that the court would be forced to decide on presidential immunity thus fast tracking the decision that presidents are in fact NOT kings. Who cares about the failed usurper when we have a full blown king slayer to punish.

    The conservatives on the Supreme Court wouldn’t allow a Democrat to get away with this blatantly illegal act. So if we force their hand maybe things play out differently. Presidential immunity should have limits and not allow free reign while in office.

    The whole premise of presidential immunity seems purpose built for the next round of fascist/authoritarian candidates. With that in mind, Trump feels like the beta test finding where the road blocks are and taking them down before the real danger starts. Realistically, Trump isn’t smart enough to do any real damage by himself. The biggest danger was always the people he surrounded himself with.

    • Itsamemario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hypothetically speaking, the conservative Supreme Court justices could be included in the official order from Biden… Wouldn’t have to worry about the conservative justices making the wrong decision then…

    • mister_monster@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      Presidential immunity does have limits. Congress is the court that can prosecute him for crimes committed while in office. That’s what impeachment is.

      • Deello@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Trump’s whole argument is that there are no limits to presidential immunity. Even after 2 impeachments and a coup attempt. The courts are dragging their feet making a decision. My hypothetical involves forcing the supreme court to rule on that claim on someone who isn’t Trump.

        • mister_monster@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yeah, it’s an interesting hypothetical. But it’s important to remember, this isn’t Trumps argument, it is longstanding precedent. The president up until now has not been subject to criminal proceedings for conduct in office outside of impeachment. It was long held by everyone in government, not just some party, that the government can be held civilly liable for executive actions but that the president cannot be held personally or criminally liable except to congress. Whether you think he deserves to face criminal charges or not, fact is this breaks from that and will seriously change the way the government functions, it will have far reaching consequences. You may think this is a good thing, Trump argues that it isn’t as has every president before him, but it will absolutely fundamentally change the way the government works if he isn’t ruled to be immune by the court.

      • mikezane@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        What if the president detonates a bomb in Congress of finds some other way to kill the members who would impeach the president? Then they can be president for life.

        • mister_monster@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          That sucks? Doesn’t change the rules, although I think if a president did something that destructive to the government of the US then the rules no longer apply and we are in military coup treason tribunal territory.

      • assembly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        That doesn’t work as a Republican controlled congress and president would then have impunity to perform whatever atrocities they like. It’s a big reason we have a coequal judicial branch.

        • mister_monster@monero.town
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          It might not work for you but thems the rules.

          Look, there are some unwritten rules in the system of government that exist de facto due to it’s structure. One of them is that there is a balance of real power, not “balance of power” due to some document saying so, but that these groups, factions, institutions in government have power distributed in such a way that it ensures the continuity of the state among other things. For example, the court can basically rule anything unconstitutional, and the president appoints the court. If the court rules something like free speech isn’t protected, this deligitimizes the court and the government loses real power. If the president packs the court, this delegitimizes the government and so on. They don’t not pack the court because they have integrity, they don’t pack the court because it would reduce their legitimacy and mandate. Politics in it’s truest sense is taken into account in the encoding of the machine.

          The more we turn it into a team game the more likely what you’re talking about becomes true. When the parties have to feign a loyalty to a higher virtue, the president can’t just commit atrocities because his party controls the congress. His own party members have to impeach him to maintain their power. But when it is reduced to a team game they’re more likely to be able to maintain political viability by doing just that.

          Our government has the integrity that we have, and IMO it doesn’t have much integrity left, because the power center, not on paper but real power, moved due to architectural changes behind the scenes that were made during world war 2, what we are living with today is the inevitable outcome of decisions made then.

  • snooggums
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    9 months ago

    Looking forward to Trump’s three nominees declaring him King.

    • 4grams@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yep, been saying the same thing. The mere act of taking the case is proof enough since even the “best” possible outcome still benefits turnip. These aren’t stupid people so I simply cannot believe they took the case in the name of justice or service to the American public. The fix is indeed in.

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    I guess In a way this election is even more important than some may think because a trump or any candidate that supports the rhetoric/script wins the presidency. This case is going to set a major precedent, with consequences as significant as roe v wade (and the disaster of overturning it).

    Because if biden wins they would give him a free pass to do similar shit. This will not be ruled on by November. Unless someone is willing to summon some crossroad demon?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

    The legal question the court will decide is “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office,” the order said.

    Trump’s lawyers have pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed presidential immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.

    Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the case, said in his own court papers that it was imperative the issue get decided quickly.

    On Feb. 8, the justices heard arguments in a separate Trump-related case on the former president’s attempt to avoid being kicked off the ballot in Colorado.

    Chutkan in December rejected Trump’s plea to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity and other constitutional grounds.


    The original article contains 640 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!