U.S. Supreme Court justices on Thursday quizzed lawyers for Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith about the former president’s claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election loss, posing questions about what happens if a president sells nuclear secrets, takes a bribe or orders a coup or assassination.
Trump appealed after lower courts rejected his request to be shielded from four election-related criminal charges on the grounds that he was serving as president when he took the actions that led to the indictment obtained by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel, told the justices that the Supreme Court has never recognized the kind of immunity that Trump seeks for a public official.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts signaled concern about relying merely on the “good faith” of the prosecutors to prevent abusive prosecutions against presidents if the Supreme Court rejects presidential immunity.
“Now you know,” Roberts told Dreeben, “how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment. And reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases - I’m not suggesting here” in Smith’s indictment of Trump.
There is nothing to fucking scrutinize!
Can a president break the law?
No. End of.
This decision should have taken all of 30 seconds weeks ago and been unanimous.
This discussion should have been laughed at and never picked up.
Exactly. This should never have gone in front of the court at all. There’s just no question here. If the court rules in favor of Trump, Biden can legally assassinate him. I doubt he would, but I also doubt SCOTUS wants to grant Biden or any potential future Democrat that power.
They’re doing this to delay, that’s all.
Biden can assassinate SCOTUS judges too.
Honestly might shoot up his popularity if he did that after a, “President is immune” verdict
I don’t like the idea of politicians swaying judges, but it would be nice if someone told the Supreme Court that Biden has a number of teams standing by to create vacancies there should it be determined that it is, in fact, not illegal. It doesn’t have to be true, mind you, but it’s definitely something they should be thinking about when they make their specious claims.
Ironically these conservative justices were laughed at and never picked up as babies, which contributes to them becoming the spiteful, immoral bastards we see today.
Yes yes, but what if he’s a Republican president? I’m gonna have to really mull this over and see if there’s any possible way I can make this seem legitimate…
“Hmm, we have this tradition of pardoning the former president for acts committed as part of his role as president. We did this because of our firm belief…that the president…couldn’t be charged for breaking the law?” Yep, sounds legit.
“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, said during the arguments.
That’s not your fucking job! You are not legislators, you aren’t there to invent laws that you think would be a good idea. If there isn’t already a legal basis for Trump’s presidential immunity to all prosecution, your job is to tell him to fuck off and throw the case back to the lower courts.
“Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. For 234 years of American history, no president was ever prosecuted for his official acts,” Sauer told the justices
So, the presidency as we know it can’t exist if we continue as we have for the past 234 years? For fuck sake, do you even listen to yourself when you say this shit? I would hope not since you’re openly defending the right of the president to commit treason and murder with impunity. And yet, here we are, with those arguments actually being considered by the Court.
What gets me is their whole reason for overturning Roe v Wade was because they claimed their job wasn’t to legislate from the bench. The only thing the current SCOTUS does consistently is fuck the people.
“Scrutinize”. More like political theater. This is all about delaying their findings until post-election. What a joke.
I really fucking hate this Roberts angle - ‘but but what about using prosecutions to abuse a former president?’ As if there weren’t plenty of tools in the legal system to mitigate that possibility, AND as if history hasn’t already shown that the DOJ leans heavily, HEAVILY on the side of caution when considering legal action against a president.
And like congress hasn’t made that a pastime for the last 20 years.
Yeah, like where is the example of such abuse? Is this not the first such prosecution in American history? Seems absurd to me to suggest that there might be a problem of abuse, or that the criminal justice system doesn’t already set a high enough standard for conviction generally, or that this case doesn’t rise to a level of severity justifying prosecution.
