Got Jitters After the Supreme Court Trump Immunity Hearing? Hang On…AND THEN VOTE!

abuse of power, court reforms, current events, democracy, insurrection, justice, presidential corruption, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Hearings, US Constitution 3 Minutes

Well, it’s clear that the radical Supreme Court majority is eager to see Trump return to the White House. No surprise there.

We entered Upsy Downsy Land again as Injustices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh transformed a hearing about whether Trump had complete criminal immunity as president into a wacky discussion of irrelevant hypotheticals about the dangers of a supposed rogue prosecutor.

This nonsense was peppered with dancing around hints that maybe a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad, corrupt president is within Constitutional boundaries if he decides to assassinate a political opponent onto whom he’s projected himself and his actions.

In other words, these Unjust Justices are just making stuff up to defend Trump and ensure the continuation of their own cushy privileges. Whether a second-term Trump (perish the thought) would try to undermine this court if it dared to cross him is apparently not something they lose sleep over. Silly men; they’re demonstrating a lack of imagination that rivals their lack of integrity and fealty to the Constitution they claim to revere.

So there’s good reason to be worried and wary concerning what will happen to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump for his role in the January 6th insurrection. Trump and his lawyers have been playing the delay card so consistently that since the Court itself delayed hearing the case, most observers have concluded that the public won’t get a chance before voting in November to learn about this extremely important evidence of Trump’s coup-level criming.

No one knows, of course, and we won’t know for sure until the Court announces their ruling–probably on the last day they can: June 30. It seems likely, however, that there is not a majority willing to declare that Trump has complete immunity.

Justice Barrett asked pointed questions seeking to distinguish between “official” and “private” acts, which elicited acknowledgments from Trump’s lawyer that most of the acts he’s accused of committing were private, thus clearly not protected by immunity.

Chief Justice Roberts was quiet, but as he is keenly aware of the Court’s reputation, he may well find the sweeping argument untenable. If our justice system is organized around the principle that no person is above the law, then surely no president is above the law. Period.

I’ve heard a few savvy legal commentators express notes of caution against drawing strong conclusions from the questions the justices asked. A couple of them voiced cautious optimism. I like that, so I’m focusing on what they had to say.

Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General for the Obama Administration and a Constitutional scholar, has appeared before the Supreme Court at least fifty times. He is a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, the author of the book Impeach: The Case Against Donald Trump, and a frequent legal commentator.

Katyal said he thinks Roberts may vote to allow the case to proceed. He buttressed his belief by saying that he accurately predicted Roberts’ pivotal vote in support of saving the Affordable Care Act, while acknowledging he felt more strongly about Roberts’ position on that case than on this one.

George T. Conway is a conservative Never Trump attorney, writer, and legal commentator. He seems quite confident the court will eventually deny Trump immunity. As for the delay, he said on a podcast titled “Everyone Needs to CALM DOWN About SCOTUS Hearing” that even if the Court waits until its last day this session to announce the trial can begin, there is still time.

Judge Chutkan, he explained, has said there must be eighty-one days before the trial will begin. September 17 would be Day One. Even if the Court remands the case to Chutkan for additional fact-finding before trial, she could hold a mini-trial hearing in July in which the government presents its entire case.

Conway said neither Chutkan nor Special Counsel Jack Smith will say it’s too close to the election. Airing all this evidence, Conway said, will “serve the public good even if we don’t get a verdict before the election.”

Regardless of what the Court decides, we are in precisely the same situation we have been. We the People must defeat Trump and all his wannabes in a resounding vote for Biden/Harris and Democrats everywhere. AND THEN WE MUST EXPAND THE COURT!

To remind you that one of Trump’s multiplicity of awfulnesses is his traitorous relationship with Putin and other American adversaries, here’s a fun short video you may not have seen.

Annie

Published by annieasksyou

I've been a nonfiction writer for many years, exploring diverse topics that pique my curiosity, as noted in my first blog posting (Greetings!). I'm seeking dialogue with others committed to joining me in this exploration, sharing my conviction that different views can be exchanged in a respectful, civil discourse where we can learn from one another and be agreeable, even when we disagree. These postings depend for their enrichment on your participation: your ideas, insights, knowledge, opinions, and personal stories.

Published

45 thoughts on “Got Jitters After the Supreme Court Trump Immunity Hearing? Hang On…AND THEN VOTE!”

    1. I like to think whatever the “true” American way might be, it’s neither sheep nor wolves, rawgod. To me, it’s lots of disparate Americans coalescing to elect Joe Biden and resoundingly defeat Trump et al—and then moving toward that more perfect union.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Looking from inside and looking from outside are two different things. Insiders see things the way they want them to be. Outsiders see things the way they are without prejudice either way.
        I hope things happen as you want them to, I want those same things for you. But how did America ever get to this point? This should never have hsppened. But it did, and how America deals with it will decide if the Great Ecperiment continues or not.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Excellent point, rawgod. Books are being written asking just that question. I hope once we escape our current miasma that we’ll make structural changes to strengthen guardrails that once served us well because no one shamelessly assaulted them the way Trump has—abetted by power-hungry Republicans who saw what he was and, with similar shamelessness, decided to hitch a ride on him. I think there are sign of regret already.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Don’t forget his super-wealthy backers, they are as much or more to blame than Trump.– they goaded him into more and more ridiculous stances until he believed he is the gods’ gift to America, if not the world. I watched this scenario play out many times. As example I will use high school, where the jocks (the most powerful group of students on campus) would goad the class clown into believing he was as funny as he thought he was. They would push him to do crazier and crazier stunts until he landed in the principal’s office. Then suddenly the jocks were nowhere to be seen. The diference for “class clown” Trump is the “jock” super-wealthy are playing with our lives — but there is no principal’s office to constrain them. When the class clown becomes the one wearing the crown, he can only go overboard and run amok, even as Trumpmdid while President.
        And now he is back for a third try after botching the second try. He still believes he needs to be the one in charge! Maybe not all the “jocks” are still behind him, but enough of them are to keep on trying. Maybe they aren’t risking as much money on him this year, but they are still cheering him on.

        Liked by 2 people

      6. One BIG thing that must not be left out: Putin’s “friendship” with Trump precedes his presidential run by some years; Steve Bannon, who seems to be a self-obsessed anarchist, also saw Trump as a useful idiot. There are international forces at work here too. I hope Jack Smith’s investigations extend to the Putin Republicans in the House and Senate who were involved in the coup attempt.

        Liked by 2 people

      1. just sayin’, but wolves don’t use guns. They use claws, teeth, and the power of the group. And they do not fear the consequences. It’s the last two I was talking about. They are also highly intelligent, unlike too many people in this world.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Somebody needs to point out to these Supreme Court judges that if a sitting president has immunity even for criminal acts committed while in office, then logically a sitting president can order the assassination of Supreme Court judges so he can replace them with judges more to his liking. That should focus their minds on the problem with such claims.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    2. Then too, if a President can commit crimes with impunity, there would be little need to heed the court’s rulings. President Nixon suggested he might disregard a decision by the Court that was less than unanimous.

      In the April 15, 2024 issue of The New Yorker, Louis Menand wrote about the Supreme Court, in the form of a review of former Justice Stephen Breyer’s latest book: “Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism” (Simon & Schuster) . Menand wrote:

      Legitimacy is why the Warren Court was on a mission in 1964. The Supreme Court’s reputation—you could say its mystique—is all that it has. It cannot tax or spend. Only Congress can do those things, and only the President can send in the Army. When Southern school districts ignored Brown and refused to integrate, the Court was in danger of being exposed as a paper tiger. It was crucial, therefore, that everyone believe that the Justices were not making law, only finding it. The Constitution made them do it. That was the Court’s claim to legitimacy.

      A partisan decision not rooted in The Constitution would further degrade the Court’s legitimacy.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Thank you for this thoughtful addition to our discussion here, William. We must hope that Neal Katyal is right about Roberts decision, in which the Chief Justice will surely have to consider the Court’s legitimacy.

        Interestingly, it appears that Barrett, whose own legitimacy can be questioned because of the way McConnell rushed through her nomination, may also be determined to demonstrate her independence.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. The Court’s judgement may depend on how far the Court is willing to go in further degrading its legitimacy with a blatantly partisan decision. I expect the Court would be reluctant to give any future President, particularly President Biden, carte blanche.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. If, if Goliath had defeated David there would be no Jesus. This is needless hair on fire. I’ve been waiting for the end of the world for a long time now it seems. Maybe whimpering is the way to go. All respect but changing the rules in a game in play is only opening a hole for mischiefs, bugs get in unnoticed until something goes wrong. Article Three state Congress makes the rules not the supremes. If

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Changing the rules in a game in play seems to be a new norm, as is judges unabashedly ruling on matters in which they appear to have a partisan interest.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Absolutely, William. I failed to mention something important that you’re alluding to: Clarence Thomas should have been forced by the Chief Justice to recuse himself because of his wife Ginni’s publicly stated support for the insurrection. His presence and participation are, alone, blatant evidence of the Court’s illegitimacy.

        AOC has announced plans to seek Thomas’s impeachment. I think this is a very good move. Though it won’t pass this legislature, it will force the issue to the forefront for voters who are already angry at the Court over abortion. What do you think?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Easiest way for chaos agents to bring it into the game. Why is often not always rational which causes those of us who live in a rational world to wonder what is happening.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. You’re right in reminding the wayward justices that they shouldn’t be trying to legislate, Richard. But they seem to think they can make things up as they go along. There’s no rational explanation for the way they completely avoided the case before them.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Not rational ,confusing. Funniest thing about being lost, it can take quite a while until you are aware. It sneaks up on you and many panic. One must immediately S.T.O.P: Stop, Think, Observe, Plan. Plans must be made but at the moment I think we need to understand what we are observing.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Even before he became president, Trump bragged about the likelihood that he could get away with murder. It would be beyond disastrous if the Trump toadies on the Supreme Court pull whatever strings they can to help him evade paying the price (including prison time) for the numerous crimes he has committed before, during, and after his presidency. As you said, Annie, Trump must be defeated (for many reasons, including so he can’t pardon himself) and SCOTUS must be expanded.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Thank you, my friend! I was thinking of you as I wrote this piece, as you were much less sanguine than I that the Court wouldn’t hold up the case. You were right!

      There’s some talk now that the Court may “compromise” around Barrett’s differentiation between “personal” and “official” acts, sending the case back to Chutkan in the District Court. Now that we know how truly outrageous these four justices are, I think I’d be happy just getting the case back to her capable hands pre-election.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Thank you, Annie. I think of myself as a realist, but in truth these days I am more of a cynic, especially when it comes to anything pertaining to Donald Trump. And let’s face it, our Supreme Court has lost its shine … and I have lost much of my respect for the Court … or if not the Court as an institution, the current Justices sitting on the Court. In this case, I really wish I weren’t right.

        Like you, I would trust Judge Chutkan to do what needs to be done quickly, for she DOES want to see this trial move forward ASAP. Let’s take it back from SCOTUS, especially after listening to Alito’s contorted logic about why the president should have immunity. For some reason, i seem to have a perpetual headache these days!!!

        Liked by 2 people

  7. The SCOTUS needs to be reorganized.

    That reorganization won’t happen since federal law changes of that magnitude are like pushing water uphill – tough to accomplish and impossible unless you have a 3/4 majority working in the same direction.

    I propose that a new SCOTUS be rolled out in parallel. Eventually the old SCOTUS can be scrapped once the new one is shown to be operational. And the old SCOTUS ruling for presidential immunity could accomplish this. Go, SCOTUS! Let Joe write an executive order to make the ne SCOTUS so. And, Joe being Joe, he could then write an executive order to put in place “Executive order – No Presidential Immunity! Fer cryin’ out loud, why would we indulge in something that stupid?”

    Also, there seems to be an obsession with making sure there are an odd number of judges to avoid a split decision. Hung juries already have means in place to handle split decisions. Use those rules, or even make up special SCOTUS rules. Court has a 50/50 ruling? Toss the case out. If someone wants to re-litigate it, well that already happens with “settled law”. I say, go for it. But start over from scratch. If you think about this, an argument could be made against recusal since that would reduce the court to an even number and we can’t have that. Why not?!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Food for thought, mdavis—we certainly are living in times that evoke satire.

      Sen Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) wrote in 2021 why Democrats felt court should be expanded by four seats; Dems reintroduced it in 2023. Interesting to read her 2021 article explaining why—and to realize how much more rogue the radical majority has become since then.

      https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/in-op-ed-senator-warren-calls-for-supreme-court-expansion-to-protect-democracy-and-restore-independent-judiciary.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I would oppose expansion to Protect Democracy and Restore Independent Judiciary but best management practices would require 13 Justices to properly oversee the 13 appellate courts, their real jobs. I like to play far more than watching. Players got to learn to win with the as built.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. I generally link the two, Richard: the majority has shown itself to be injudicious and blatantly political, as well as beholden to special interests—AND—now that there are thirteen districts, nine justices are insufficient to manage the caseload (though that doesn’t stop them from taking frivolous cases and using them to curtail our freedom and the proper functioning of government).

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Annie, if presidents are immune, then that makes us more an autocracy. Presidents must be held to account. When Congress was prepared to remove Richard Nixon from the White House, that was one of America’s finest hours. Nixon was what he said he wasn’t – a crook.

    This decision by SCOTUS must be based on the role and not its most recent illicit acting former president. It means the current president and his successors could do something illegal and get away with it just as the last former president did on multiple occasions. Causing and abetting the insurrection, meddling in the election, violating document protection procedure, extorting political gain from the Ukraine president, steering government business to his businesses and using his family in unvetted roles in the White House et al are just a few of Trump’s crimes while in the White House.

    Keith

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. Annie, it is interesting that two of these four have created legitimate concerns about sexual misconduct in their past that was not fully vetted. Call me crazy, but that has always concerned me, especially given their occupation. Keith

        Liked by 2 people

      3. Annie, McConnell’s biggest disservice was not considering nominee Merrick Garland for SCOTUS. Anytime a politician changes the rules, take it to the bank, it is political.

        As for one of the alleged sexual misconduct justices, it is quite obvious Clarence Thomas has been bought and paid for by influence peddlers. It is so overt, not acting to suspend or remove him is an injustice to America.

        Keith

        Liked by 1 person

      4. Definitely, Keith. I noted earlier in responding to William that AOC has said she’s begun drawing up articles of impeachment re:Thomas. It’s about time, and Roberts’ silence on Thomas’ participation in cases where he has either direct or apparent conflict is a huge stain on this already sullied Court.

        Like

  9. Didn’t get to hear the argument — just snippets, as the news covered — so glad for this post. Yes, my anxious stomach is in knots, which does no one any good. My disgust seems lodged squarely in my throat. Time to really learn to meditate. Thx, Annie, as always, for laying it all out.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  11. Pingback: Whoa! EMTALA, SCOTUS, Idaho, and “Lady Organs”? – annieasksyou…

Leave a comment