The theory I’ve seen is that they are just going to find some reason to remand it back to DC court, then it has to go through the entire process over again, effectively killing trial until after the election.

4/25/2024 2:25:09 PM

Quote :

"This Supreme Court is very adept at authoring opinions with carve-outs that pertain to specific circumstances but not others. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar tomfoolery with this opinion."

The easiest punt would be to more or less agree with the DC Appeals court. Presidents may be entitled to criminal immunity for official acts, but the charged conduct plainly isn't an official act. Hell, Trump's own lawyers admitted he was acting as a private citizen in the charged conduct. Just say "only official acts could enjoy immunity, and these weren't even remotely official acts"

4/25/2024 6:20:01 PM

The easiest touchdown is let this guy get what he deserves.

[Edited on April 25, 2024 at 10:11 PM. Reason : -]

4/25/2024 10:11:08 PM

Would definitely help solidify the independence of the judiciary and the supposed non-political nature of the Supreme Court if a court made up of conservative appointees let him face justice.

4/26/2024 7:39:35 AM

Yeah, too bad we don’t have that

4/26/2024 7:47:16 AM

I know, but it still felt good to type it. It was aspirational.

4/26/2024 1:35:28 PM

Seriously, if Roberts wants to protect the reputation of the Court, the decision should be 9-0 for "these alleged acts aren't official acts, no immunity." Fuck, Trump's own lawyers said they were private acts, for fuck's sake. They gave you a gift, take it. And tell Clarence to fuckin recuse himself next time

4/27/2024 2:41:44 PM