Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Maddow on SCOTUS. [View all]
markpkessinger
(8,416 posts)57. How they ultimately rule is entirely beside the point . . .
. . . This is about delaying the trial until after the election to help Trump. My prediction is that they won't ultimately find that he is immune, but they will have done their fealty to Trump by granting him the delay he wants, because, in the event he is re-elected, it won't matter whether they find that he was immune or not, because the DOJ won't prosecute a sitting president.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Biden will never have to leave if they give dump immunity, Biden should immediately jail him.
onecaliberal
Feb 2024
#20
Bush v. Gore all over again - the ruling will apply for this specific instance and for no other president.
Probatim
Feb 2024
#37
If this gets determined by their tongues version of linguistic interpretation, man, the Supreme Court
Baitball Blogger
Feb 2024
#54
I suspect there will be protests in the street against the Supreme Court, if it goes that far.
Baitball Blogger
Feb 2024
#52
umm. if they will never grant immunity to trump, why hear trumps case in the first place?
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#43
Well, that maybe the case, but then why hear it in the first place? Rhetorical, it's cuz they intended to give TSF
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#48
My gut is saying both are likely the motives, I feel SCOTUS is very fearful of Biden second term.
msfiddlestix
Feb 2024
#64
It does seem like the Supreme Court is moving to end the concept of checks and balances.
Baitball Blogger
Feb 2024
#7
So Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are in league with Trump? They could've dissented. They didn't.
onenote
Feb 2024
#5
Because they're not shy about issuing written dissents to cert decisions they think are egregiously wrong.
onenote
Feb 2024
#9
I don't think dissents come into play when SCOTUS is merely announcing its intention to hear a case.
ShazzieB
Feb 2024
#12
It is relatively common for Justices to note their disagreement with decisions denying cert, sometimes with a
onenote
Feb 2024
#13
Exactly, and Biden will have carte blanche to do what he wants for the remainder of his term
SouthernDem4ever
Feb 2024
#16
In my opinion, the current Supreme Court, as a whole, is not concerned about credibility.
Think. Again.
Feb 2024
#72
Can anyone point to any indication whatsoever in our laws that a President has absolute immunity
Midnight Writer
Feb 2024
#19