this super right majority Supreme Court is protecting not the president or the office of the presidency…but protecting this former president…trump…Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh…are all in…and throw in Clarence Thomas who should be recusing himself from anything trump since his wife, Ginni, is in the thick of it…it seems that they are so easily delaying the decision in order to delay the prosecution until after the election…they are not troubled with the things that trump has been indicted for but rather the fact that a prosecutor has brought about a indictment…these justices are into protecting trump…back and forth about official or private acts… huey!…I’m freaking out…they are not deciding the case that is before them – does trump has absolute immunity?…they’re going off on tangents…going off on hypotheticals…not answering that question which is before them…those three or four justices…the liberal justices are trying to keep them on course…the danger to the rule of law…that prosecution for criminal acts are a deterrent to anyone thinking about committing those criminal acts while in office…if, the big if, presidents could do whatever they wan,t the rule of law would be trampled upon without any accountability or responsibility…the takeaway from today’s immunity argument is that this Supreme Court with the extreme right majority is willing to delay their decision and thereby delay the trial and save trump who may become president again and make all these trials go away…from The Washington Post: “The Supreme Court appeared poised to reject Donald Trump’s sweeping claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election, but in a way that is likely to significantly delay his stalled election-interference trial in D.C.
During nearly three hours of oral argument, several conservative justices said they were concerned about hampering the power of future presidents or subjecting them to the whims of a politically motivated prosecutor. Liberal justices emphasized that a president is not above the law.
Washington Post by Perry Stein and Rachel Weiner: “Gorsuch: ‘We’re writing a rule for the ages’:
Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh frequently told the government that the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to all future presidents — not just Donald Trump.
“I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he continued.
Kavanaugh similarly said the stakes in this case extend far beyond Trump and the current allegations.
“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Kavanaugh said.
The liberal wing of the court pushed back, with Justice Elena Kagan saying those issues “seem important and may occasionally be difficult” but “also seem not really before us.” And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that letting the D.C. Circuit ruling stand would be the cautious choice that would not disrupt the current understanding of presidential power.
“This sort of difficult line-drawing problem that we’re having with all of these hypotheticals,” she said, “is being necessitated” by the claim of absolute immunity.
“You suggested that the lack of immunity and the possibility of prosecution in the presidential context is an innovation,” she told Trump’s attorney. “And I understood it to be the status quo.
from Washington Post by Spencer Hsu: “Legal expert: July ruling will ‘practically close’ window for trial by election: It was clear from questioning that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and other justices are concerned that the lower court was “a little too sweeping in saying there was no immunity, period,” said Randall D. Eliason, a former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor.
“The sense I got from most of the questioning is that a number of justices are concerned about the idea, this opinion that there’s never immunity for anything,” Eliason said. He said Dreeben’s argument made sense that rather than immunityformer presidents should be able to raise uniquelegal defenses that would apply to certain presidential actions, “but I’m not sure he’s going to get a majority opinion to goalong with that.”
Whether Trump can be tried through a verdict in Washington “is going to depend a lot on what they say and how they write it, and very significantly how quickly they do it,” Eliason said. “If they wait until the last day of the term [in late June orearly July], the window forgetting the case tried before the election is practically closed, or close to it. You may start before the election, but you may not finish it.”
Trump’s trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, might not take that long to decide between immune and nonimmune conduct if the Supreme Court issues a clear ruling, but the question remains whether Trump will be able to again appeal her decisions before trial can begin, a question that remains in dispute between the sides and that did not come up in Thursday’s argument.”…also from Spencer Hsu: “Sotomayor fights Alito’s claim that prosecuting Trump threatens democracy:
Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Sonia Sotomayor battled over which poses the greater threat to democracy, prosecuting former president Donald Trump for allegedly plotting to overturn the 2020 election through fraud to the point of violence, or not prosecuting him for it?
Alito warned that prosecuting Trump is the greater threat.
“If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally [prosecuted] by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Alito asked.
Justice Department attorney Michael Dreeben said no: “It’s exactly the opposite. … There is an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence. If you lose, you accept the results. That has been the nation’s experience.”
Taking up the gauntlet, Sotomayor made an equally blunt point. “A stable democratic society needs the good faith of its public officials, correct? … And that good faith assumes that they will follow the law?” she said.
“The ultimate check is the goodwill and faith in democracy,” Sotomayor said, answering her own question. The “crimes that are alleged in this case … are the antithesis of democracy” and “put into suspicion here that no man is above the law, either in his official or private acts.”
it’s all so disgusting about this extreme right majority Supreme Court…that’s why I’m freaking out…it doesn’t look good…they’re protecting trump just by not ruling quickly but stretching out everything…they’re not interested in any part of the case before them…they could have upheld the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit when it unamimously ruled the trump was not immune from prosecution for everything up to and including January 6…instead of upholding that ruling, the Court said they would take the case…and then, instead of quickly hearing the arguments…they delayed…and then now, that they have heard arguments won’t let us know their ruling until June or July…making sure the trial would not start before the November election…
freaking out…
picked up Ben and Ethan from Trenton New Jersey Transit…they’re coming for a wedding of Ben’s high school girlfriend…the wedding is tomorrow…I made chicken matzoh ball soup for Ben…along with a Caesar Salad from the Creekside…they are delicious…and we watched the Sixers game…Ben said if they didn’t win tonight we wee “toast”…luckily we did win…saw Carol and Rafe in the audience on TV…twice…that’s exciting…Pam was in town for Maddy’s birthday…Happy Birthday Maddy…and Happy Birthday to Sally…her birthday today also…many happy returns to both…glad we’re not “toast”…
trump complaining he can’t go out on the campaign trail…instead of campaigning, he’s on the gold course…
Art Salazar 