Sceptical Supreme Court Could Hand Trump Partial Victory...
Apr 26, 2024 1:41:15 GMT -5
Post by ExquisiteGerbil on Apr 26, 2024 1:41:15 GMT -5
Sceptical Supreme Court Could Hand Trump Partial Victory In Immunity Case
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, APR 25, 2024 - 01:40 PM
After two and a half hours, the Supreme Court has finished hearing arguments on whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution.
Reading the tea-leaves of the comments has left most believing that SCOTUS will fail to grant former President Trump the full immunity he is seeking (choosing instead to narrow the protections for former presidents), but are likely to issue a ruling that could further delay his trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
That would be a partial win for the former President.
As Axios reports, a definitive ruling against Trump - a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume - seemed to be the least likely outcome.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to rule that former presidents must have at least some protection from criminal charges, but not necessarily the "absolute immunity" Trump is seeking.
The core distinction during oral arguments came down to a president's official vs. unofficial actions. — and which of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were official vs. unofficial.
The most likely outcome might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings.
That would still be a victory for Trump, as Sam Dorman reports via The Epoch Times that the outcome of this appeal could delay lower court proceedings in President Trump’s Washington trial as well as his cases in Georgia and Florida. It’s unlikely that the Supreme Court, which is expected to release a decision in June, will write an opinion that delays his ongoing criminal “hush money” trial in New York.
The bottom-line is that no clear, concise majority opinion emerged this morning.
But there may be five justices willing to kick the can down the road - and that's enough for Trump, at least for now.
* * *
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today over former President Donald Trump’s claim that he’s immune from criminal prosecution for official acts he undertook while in office.
Listen live here (due to start at 1000ET):
Jonathan Turley is live-blogging the hearing on X:
We are off and running on the oral arguments on immunity with John Sauer, former Scalia clerk, arguing for the former president.
...Chief Justice Roberts asked the most poignant question. What if a president appointed an ambassador (a clearly official act) but does so for a bribe? Sauer offered a nuanced point that the bribe itself would not be an official act...
...Justice Sotomayor just hit Sauer and said that Trump was only acting for personal gain and not in the interests or in a function of his government. She is making the slippery slope argument that such immunity would protect the assassination of a president...
...Justice Jackson said that "every president from the beginning of time" understood that they could be prosecuted but they "have continued to function and do their job."...
...Sauer agrees that a president can be prosecuted for private conduct. His point is only that the motivations of official conduct should not be the inquiry of the court. He is doing a good job in maintaining a more nuanced position before the Court...
Continued at link
BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, APR 25, 2024 - 01:40 PM
After two and a half hours, the Supreme Court has finished hearing arguments on whether a former president is immune from criminal prosecution.
Reading the tea-leaves of the comments has left most believing that SCOTUS will fail to grant former President Trump the full immunity he is seeking (choosing instead to narrow the protections for former presidents), but are likely to issue a ruling that could further delay his trial on charges of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election.
That would be a partial win for the former President.
As Axios reports, a definitive ruling against Trump - a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume - seemed to be the least likely outcome.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to rule that former presidents must have at least some protection from criminal charges, but not necessarily the "absolute immunity" Trump is seeking.
The core distinction during oral arguments came down to a president's official vs. unofficial actions. — and which of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results were official vs. unofficial.
The most likely outcome might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings.
That would still be a victory for Trump, as Sam Dorman reports via The Epoch Times that the outcome of this appeal could delay lower court proceedings in President Trump’s Washington trial as well as his cases in Georgia and Florida. It’s unlikely that the Supreme Court, which is expected to release a decision in June, will write an opinion that delays his ongoing criminal “hush money” trial in New York.
The bottom-line is that no clear, concise majority opinion emerged this morning.
But there may be five justices willing to kick the can down the road - and that's enough for Trump, at least for now.
* * *
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today over former President Donald Trump’s claim that he’s immune from criminal prosecution for official acts he undertook while in office.
Listen live here (due to start at 1000ET):
Jonathan Turley is live-blogging the hearing on X:
We are off and running on the oral arguments on immunity with John Sauer, former Scalia clerk, arguing for the former president.
...Chief Justice Roberts asked the most poignant question. What if a president appointed an ambassador (a clearly official act) but does so for a bribe? Sauer offered a nuanced point that the bribe itself would not be an official act...
...Justice Sotomayor just hit Sauer and said that Trump was only acting for personal gain and not in the interests or in a function of his government. She is making the slippery slope argument that such immunity would protect the assassination of a president...
...Justice Jackson said that "every president from the beginning of time" understood that they could be prosecuted but they "have continued to function and do their job."...
...Sauer agrees that a president can be prosecuted for private conduct. His point is only that the motivations of official conduct should not be the inquiry of the court. He is doing a good job in maintaining a more nuanced position before the Court...
Continued at link