The Supreme Court on Friday said it will not fast-track consideration of Donald Trump’s claim that he has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president, a question crucial to whether he can be put on trial for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The court’s one-sentence order, from which there were no noted dissents, means a federal appeals court in Washington will be the first to review a district judge’s ruling earlier this month rejecting Trump’s claim of immunity. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9.

Special counsel Jack Smith had asked the justices to short-circuit the normal appellate process and quickly settle the question of presidential criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court previously has not been called upon to resolve. He said public interest required intervention now, so the federal election-obstruction trial of Trump — the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — could proceed as scheduled in March.

Archive

  • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
    891·
    11 months ago

    The GOP establishment, which the Federalist Society that now controls the SCOTUS represents, never liked Trump.

    They spent decades turning their base into conspiratorial, counterfactual nitwits through the media they own because then they could easily tell them “climate change isnt real! Give rich people all the money! Poor people made bad decisions!” etc, and rob everyone blind to thunderous applause and their nitwits defending the owner’s grift from the rest of us.

    Then one day a notorious opportunist got up on stage, said the quiet parts out loud, co-opted that engineered willfull ignorance, and stole their nitwit brigade right out from under them. Remember, the turning point for Trump was the day he told the crowd he’d like to take protesters out back and “beat the shit” out of them. Prior to that he was hiring extras to attend his rallies.

    The Machiavellian Mitch McConnells and John Roberts have been quietly seething ever since. Trump makes them feel dirty because he embodies the crassness of the con they’ve been leading their nitwit voters around by from a sterile distance. Their crass nitwits aren’t supposed to bleed into their halls of power! Their careful, coordinated long game grift compromised by a 2 bit snake oil song and dance grifter.

    • yesman@lemmy.world
      20·
      11 months ago

      I think the people who want Trump removed from the ballot most are establishment Republicans. Not because of the fascism, but because of the populism and repeated lost elections. They won’t challenge him in public because they might get primaried (or assassinated).

    • drislands@lemmy.world
      7·
      11 months ago

      Well said. This is something I was thinking recently when discussing the matter of Trump’s disqualification from being on the ballot with my partner – on the one hand, it’s tempting to think that the Conservative appointees would definitely rule in favor of Trump and that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to him.

      But on the other hand, at the end of the day isn’t Trump really just a useful idiot for the real power behind the Republican party? He certainly didn’t invent all the “issues” he ran on – he just co-opted them while (as you say) saying the quiet parts out loud. Now he’s getting even more divisive and a lot of people that previously thought he was harmless have seen how insane and dangerous he really is, even before January 6th.

      With all that in mind, I think it’s more likely that SCOTUS will wind up ruling that Trump is indeed disqualified under the 14th amendment so they can finally get him out of the way of the more serious candidates that will do what they want.

      • m0darn@lemmy.ca
        6·
        11 months ago

        I think it’s more likely that SCOTUS will wind up ruling that Trump is indeed disqualified under the 14th amendment so they can finally get him out of the way of the more serious candidates that will do what they want.

        And also protect their majority in the court by appearing unbiased.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      4·
      11 months ago

      And we need to remember that if SCOTUS really was all-in for Trump, the majority wouldn’t have rejected his challenges to the 2020 election.

    • Zink
      4·
      11 months ago

      Beautifully said!

      The GOP establishment finally got its own “leopards eating MY face?” moment, which is a reversal they thought would never happen. Even though they caused it.

      • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
        6·
        11 months ago

        Thank you!

        I enjoy I eating their faces as much as the next filthy socialist, the sad thing is, in their cold, sociopathic mission to turn our country into a locked down, stable, generational capital farm/labor camp, they unleashed a fascist blaze that very well may burn them, their nitwits, and everyone else alive.

        From the people’s perspective, I’m honestly not sure what’s worse, the ice of perpetual servitude for sociopaths, or the by comparison fast, unsustainable blaze of murderous, scapegoating hatred.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.caOP
      462·
      11 months ago

      I think this is probably not true because:

      1. they agreed to expedite this process/decision.

      2. This appears to be unanimous. The liberal justices have no interest in helping Trump.

      3. Jack Smith was trying to skip a step (the appeals court), and they were basically like ‘no, do this the usual way.’

      4. the appeals court already agreed to expedite the appeal if their decision went this way.

      • Nougat@kbin.social
        271·
        11 months ago

        The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has already shown that it is going to move very quickly on this issue. If that had not been the case, SCOTUS may have decided to take it up. As it stands, SCOTUS wants to stay out of all this as much as possible; there is no ruling they can make on anything Trump that won’t result in a huge public uproar, possibly leading to violence, possibly leading to violence against the justices themselves.

        SCOTUS can’t rule that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any actions they take while holding office. Not for love of democracy, not for self-preservation, not to protect any corruption status quo. They would need to rule against Trump, and that means violence.

    • Trollception@lemmy.world
      11·
      11 months ago

      Problem is if it’s left up to the voters then Trump will likely win. I’ve been following the polls on fivethirtyeight and it doesn’t look good for Biden at least for the popular vote. Not sure how it will play out with the electoral colleges and how state votes are counted.

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        11 months ago

        No lie it is.

        They already declined to intervene in Trump’s stolen documents case. No comments, no dissent, the judicial version of, “LOL no.” I believe there was an election related case against Trump they declined to hear. Can’t find it for all the noise about this case.

        Oh, and they refused to hear Alabama’s voting district case. So for all 3, they said let the lower court’s ruling stand.

        • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
          3·
          11 months ago

          Oh, and they refused to hear Alabama’s voting district case. So for all 3, they said let the lower court’s ruling stand.

          Smith asked for this case to skip the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and go straight to the Supreme Court. Not granting that request isn’t the same as denying an appeal.