Supreme Court takes up Trump's immunity appeal

[Shaul]

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up Trump's appeal of a ruling about his immunity claim. The court set a date of April 22 to hear arguments. This action puts the trial of Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump on hold. It could also cause the case to be delayed until after the November election.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

 

[sun rise]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Truthseeker]

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up Trump's appeal of a ruling about his immunity claim. The court set a date of April 22 to hear arguments. This action puts the trial of Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump on hold. It could also cause the case to be delayed until after the November election.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

Just about all experts on the constitution and law say the immunity claim is frivolous. They thought logically the Supreme Court should have let the appellate ruling stand and not take up the case. This delays the time of the trial of Trump on trying to overthrow the election, and thus looks like some of the justices are trying to do Trump a favor. It looks political on their part, and thus in the eyes of many Americans erodes confidence in the institution of the Supreme Court for some people, and also erodes confidence in the rule of law. People are wondering whether this particular trial will be over before the election. Before this the FBI dragged their feet in investigating whether be charged because they were afraid of looking political. It is worse being political, than not doing something because you are afraid of looking political. This in itself was taking politics into consideration, which the FBI is not supposed to do. This is all a perfect firestorm of law breaking down in the US. The appellate system for years had been abused for years anyway. Lawyers can appeal for frivolous reasons any time, and this doesn't serve the rule of law. If there is a lack of trust in the justice system, what will be the result? Chaos in some form?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a silly waste of time/delay-tactic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What a silly waste of time/delay-tactic.

Well, from Trump's POV, it isn't silly, because delay, delay, delay has always been his friend. Since the Court has decided to hear it, I suppose we must assume that the Federal trial will not take place before the election in November, and this is a loss for Jack Smith and a win for Trump.

@sunrise correctly cites the Declaration of Indepence, which says: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." Can there be any doubt whatever that a President with absolute immunity to do anything that (s)he wants is a despot, and will behave as one?

I think that @Truthseeker may not be wrong in wondering whether some of the Justices (it only takes 4 of the 9) agreed to hear the case as a political favour to Trump -- and that this in itself poses an immense danger to necessary confidence by the people that their institutions function as intended.

Most of all, however, I wonder whether Trump has considered this: if the Court were to come down on the side of absolute Presidential immunity, Biden would then be immune from the consequences of ignoring habeas corpus (or any other law) and locking him up and throwing away the key -- along with any other action he might conceive of that could prevent Trump running or winning an election.

 

[Ebionite]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These rights are among those recognised by the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Blackstone describes natural rights:

Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land.

INTRODUCTION, SECTION 2: Of the Nature of Laws in General

In the context of English common law, the Creator is mentioned in King Alfred's Dooms (verse 3):

There are also differences between this text and Exodus 20 regarding idolatry. There's a a type of idol that is called an idol of the heart, which intangible. Arguably an idol of the common law can be found in the maxim that the king can do no wrong, since historical kings did commit wrongs. It's from that maxim that we get the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What a silly waste of time/delay-tactic.

It seems to be working so far.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There are also differences between this text and Exodus 20 regarding idolatry.

Oy vey ...

 

[Ebionite]

Oy vey ...

The idols of the heart are meaningful for the state of Israel, since the early political support for a Jewish state was from the Balfour Declaration:

"the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”

A home for the Jewish people in the land of what is now called Palestine was established in Genesis 15.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It seems to be working so far.

Yep, unfortunately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a silly waste of time/delay-tactic.

It is Trump's best tactic. He knows that he is guilty. We know that he is guilty. He probably thinks that as President that he can pardon himself. That is his one hope.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up Trump's appeal of a ruling about his immunity claim. The court set a date of April 22 to hear arguments. This action puts the trial of Special Counsel Jack Smith against Trump on hold. It could also cause the case to be delayed until after the November election.

Supreme Court takes up Trump immunity appeal - SCOTUSblog

Sounds like the Supreme Court has done Trump a solid. It certainly helps Trump to arrange things so that his guilty verdict stays out of the news cycle until after the election.


... but it also signals the likely outcome of Trump's case, since I'm sure that if Trump wad going to be vindicated, he and the right-wing justices would have liked to have that before the election.

 

[F1fan]

I was really mad last night after hearing about the order. But this morning I was thinking how even if the trial had gone forward this spring or summer, that if some mega had managed to weasel his or herself onto the jury, and that led to a mistrial. It would be really really good for Trump. As is MAGAs are going to vote for Trump no matter what. All the sane, Republicans, and independence, and Democrats know that Trump is disturbed man who is unfit for the presidency.

If Trump is reelected, it is going to cause a lot of problems for the United States no matter what, whether he is tried for his crimes or not. The real decision-maker, and all this with Trump‘s criminal activity is going to be the voters. The voters need to understand the Trump is not fit, and poses a threat to national and global security.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate. Put these three facts together, do a little analysis, and tell me if you don't agree:

1. Jack Smith, anticipating a claim of "absolute immunity" asked the Court to take the question up expediently. The Court declined. This favours Trump
2. Trump appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove him from the ballot. The Court took that up with all due expedience. This favours Trump
3. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 22 -- many weeks in the future, so hardly expeditiously -- with no hint as to when a decision will be made. This favours Trump's desire for as much delay as possible, with an election looming.
4. Regarding the last point, the Court is almost certain to deny "absolute immunity," and so could have declined to take the case at all, because the Third District Appellate Court gave a unanimous, definitive argument, which the Court could have accepted on its merits, which would have allowed the trial to continue. This favours Trump.

I find this horrifying. I honestly thought better of Chief Justice Roberts. But now, I think that the Court is defintely rogue, and will severely damage citizens' trust in it. Roberts is not going to go down well in the history of the Court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate. Put these three facts together, do a little analysis, and tell me if you don't agree:

1. Jack Smith, anticipating a claim of "absolute immunity" asked the Court to take the question up expediently. The Court declined. This favours Trump
2. Trump appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove him from the ballot. The Court took that up with all due expedience. This favours Trump
3. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 22 -- many weeks in the future, so hardly expeditiously -- with no hint as to when a decision will be made. This favours Trump's desire for as much delay as possible, with an election looming.
4. Regarding the last point, the Court is almost certain to deny "absolute immunity," and so could have declined to take the case at all, because the Third District Appellate Court gave a unanimous, definitive argument, which the Court could have accepted on its merits, which would have allowed the trial to continue. This favours Trump.

I find this horrifying. I honestly thought better of Chief Justice Roberts. But now, I think that the Court is defintely rogue, and will severely damage citizens' trust in it. Roberts is not going to go down well in the history of the Court.

This court is unbelievably corrupt. But so are the Republicans. It would take both parties to fix this.

 

[Regiomontanus]

The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate. Put these three facts together, do a little analysis, and tell me if you don't agree:

1. Jack Smith, anticipating a claim of "absolute immunity" asked the Court to take the question up expediently. The Court declined. This favours Trump
2. Trump appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove him from the ballot. The Court took that up with all due expedience. This favours Trump
3. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 22 -- many weeks in the future, so hardly expeditiously -- with no hint as to when a decision will be made. This favours Trump's desire for as much delay as possible, with an election looming.
4. Regarding the last point, the Court is almost certain to deny "absolute immunity," and so could have declined to take the case at all, because the Third District Appellate Court gave a unanimous, definitive argument, which the Court could have accepted on its merits, which would have allowed the trial to continue. This favours Trump.

I find this horrifying. I honestly thought better of Chief Justice Roberts. But now, I think that the Court is defintely rogue, and will severely damage citizens' trust in it. Roberts is not going to go down well in the history of the Court.

"The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate."

Hah! Yes, but if you can point out a time when that was not the case, I would be truly shocked.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate."

Hah! Yes, but if you can point out a time when that was not the case, I would be truly shocked.

Well, Supreme Court Justices, last time I checked, are all human. And fallible.

And yet, I think it is possible -- with a lot of work and a lot of good will -- to use reason to make fair judgements. I don't think this lot is doing that, unfortunately.

 

[F1fan]

The more I think about this, the more I'm beginning to suspect (read "realize") that SCOTUS is now politicized and acting contrary to their mandate. Put these three facts together, do a little analysis, and tell me if you don't agree:

1. Jack Smith, anticipating a claim of "absolute immunity" asked the Court to take the question up expediently. The Court declined. This favours Trump
2. Trump appealed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision to remove him from the ballot. The Court took that up with all due expedience. This favours Trump
3. The Court has scheduled oral arguments for April 22 -- many weeks in the future, so hardly expeditiously -- with no hint as to when a decision will be made. This favours Trump's desire for as much delay as possible, with an election looming.
4. Regarding the last point, the Court is almost certain to deny "absolute immunity," and so could have declined to take the case at all, because the Third District Appellate Court gave a unanimous, definitive argument, which the Court could have accepted on its merits, which would have allowed the trial to continue. This favours Trump.

I find this horrifying. I honestly thought better of Chief Justice Roberts. But now, I think that the Court is defintely rogue, and will severely damage citizens' trust in it. Roberts is not going to go down well in the history of the Court.

Sometimes I feel that ethical and normal citizens are going to lose against this strong aggression by the far right, and it's not worth the fight. Just let the far right wingers take control and let the house collapse under it's own corruption. I think the only reason the far right is so strong is because there is a good fight by ethical, pro-democracy people. It just seems the deck has been stacked against the decent citizens by the corrupt side and the fight will inevitably fail.

It really looks like it will be up to the American voters in re-electing Biden. It needs to be massive. And I'm not even confident that far right wingers won't commit some fraud to interfere with the vote counts. The corrupt far right learned a lot of lessons from Trump's failed election fraud in 2020, and will they get away with it this time?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sometimes I feel that ethical and normal citizens are going to lose against this strong aggression by the far right, and it's not worth the fight. Just let the far right wingers take control and let the house collapse under it's own corruption. I think the only reason the far right is so strong is because there is a good fight by ethical, pro-democracy people. It just seems the deck has been stacked against the decent citizens by the corrupt side and the fight will inevitably fail.

It really looks like it will be up to the American voters in re-electing Biden. It needs to be massive. And I'm not even confident that far right wingers won't commit some fraud to interfere with the vote counts. The corrupt far right learned a lot of lessons from Trump's failed election fraud in 2020, and will they get away with it this time?

As of right now, the potential for a massive Biden win doesn't look very good. Polling -- never a particularly good indicator -- certainly suggests not. Still, the one thing we can hope for is that people who are essentially good at heart will, once they're alone in the voting booth, will finally say "I just can't vote Trump -- it's not right!" If that happens often enough (and I think it could) you might get your wish.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My fervent hope is that Trump stays out of jail long enough to be denounced on election day.