Jack Smith clearly has more faith in the Supreme Court doing the right thing than I do.
I dunno, maybe this is wishful thinking but to me it seems like a good play. If they rule in favor of him, they're even more likely to win the other trials. If they rule in favor of Trump, they're risking their own necks because they'd be giving Biden free reign to do literally whatever he wants. Threading the needle and deciding something like only Trump is allowed, or only in this specific case it's ok, has no legal justification whatsoever and Roberts isn't crazy enough to attempt it.
...they'd be giving Biden free reign to do literally whatever he wants
I like your premise, but I think conservatives know that normal people don't use the Oval Office to commit crimes. That's strictly conservative behavior. Thus, a ruling for Trump would effectively be a ruling to protect conservative presidents.
The White House has ALWAYS been used to commit crimes, it's part of the job description. The difference is the TYPES of crimes Trump committed.
Enabling, or commiting, mass murder is NOT something the courts can come down on POTUS for, as it's part of the load bearing structure of our empire, no matter how illegal or immoral.
Paying off pornstars and publicly refusing to return stolen classified national security documents, is so far outside the "norms" of "acceptable" Executive Branch criminal activity that their prosecution doesn't risk setting a precedent of holding future Presidents accountable for the myriad of crimes they will ALL commit i.e. war crimes.
The White House has ALWAYS been used to commit crimes
In the last 100 years, I think conservative presidents are more widely recognized for their crimes in office. Nixon, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Trump.
I don't really consider the Clinton BJ scandal to rise to the label of "criminal behavior" the way killing people or destroying foreign governments to benefit corporations does. But that is where the left and the right seem to differ on what behaviors should be most frowned upon. I think the left and right just value human lives differently.
I throught that my specific and intentional language around violence and death made it clear that I wasn't talking about sex scandals.
Do you really think that only Republican administrations advance the goals of American empire and neo-colonialism? If so, then I hope one day you start reading books.
But, if you're not that naive and do understand that Presidents of both parties advance those goals, I'd ask you how you think empires are built, maintained, or expanded?
You have far more faith that people won't just choose to do the outright insane thing than I do.
I do in this case because Roberts has shown us before that he cares about his legacy. And if he were to (potentially) hand Trump the keys to the kingdom, he'd have to deal with whatever backlash Biden or congress give him first.
Let's be honest, congress has been a group of self-serving ancients who would rather dig their heads in the sand than actually govern. I don't know that congress would step up here even in this case.
I do think that Biden would be forced to directly deal with the court and then that would create a constitutional crisis kind of mess that will make 2024 even more awful that it's already looking to be.
Hopefully Roberts understands that.
As the previous commenter said, Roberts has demonstrated many times that he cares about the fact that this court will go down in history as the Roberts court, and that it will forever be remembered for Dobbs. He has attempted over and over again to earn back that status of legitimacy, from issuing the first ever code of ethics to rejecting a challenge to the ban on gay conversion therapy.
I do not like SCOTUS at all, I think they're a bunch of lying motherfuckers right now, but I also think Roberts recognizes the court is still on razor thin ice with the public because of Dobbs. I think they will not save Trump, especially since Trump has nothing to offer them in exchange.
Two of them literally owe Trump their seats on the court. Clarence Thomas and his wife were part of the team trying to help Trump overthrow the election.
They owe him their seat? Nah. That's not how it works. In a metaphorical sense, sure, you could make that assumption, but the reality is that he literally can do nothing for them. Even if he wins 2024, he can do nothing to benefit them directly, especially not anything that any president couldn't already do.
the question of whether former president Donald Trump has absolute presidential immunity for crimes he’s accused of carrying out while in the White House.
The constitution let's us know:
Article II of the Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government and vests executive power in the president. The power includes the execution and enforcement of federal law
He should enforce the law that he is meant to execute.
Zero immunity.
Not only that but if the SCOTUS rules that presidents are immune to prosecution for anything they do while in office Biden should just straight up murder all the justices that voted in favor of the opinion. There would be no (legal) consequences!
Dark Brandon: Endgame
I'd add the names of several lobbyists to that list
The republicans who own the supreme court, chosen by the Federalist Society, are not maga republicans. They might just throw trump under a bus if they thought there was still a way for Republicans to hold onto power without him
It's a risk, but the Supreme Court might also realize that Trump's recent "dictator" rhetoric is a direct challenge to their power also if he gets elected.
Dictators don't allow others to wield any real power.
I wonder if they realize another Trump presidency would make them irrelevant.
Trump is going to rule as a dictator with an iron fist if he's elected again. There won't be a need for 9 justices on the Supreme Court when we have a single Supreme Ruler that does the same job.
No they fucking wont.
These same assholes overturned Roe v Wade and did a lot of other questionable things. There is zero evidence they'll suddenly grow a conscience.
That's not what OP said.
They will never grow a conscience, but they will happily throw Trump under the bus if it serves them.
He is not one of them so he can easily be made part of the out group.
The very second dumping Trump is better for their aspirations of power than holding on to him they will do just that.
Not for moral reasons though, those don't even fall into consideration.
However, this was also the SCOTUS that refused to indulge Trump on his election fraud bullshit.
Just yesterday, they allowed Washington to ban gay conversion therapy under the basis that regulating medical therapy is reserved to the states. A few years back, Gorsuch supported a ruling banning workplace discrimination of LGBT people under the logic that it's sex-based discrimination.
To be clear, Alito and Thomas are straight-up partisan hacks, but the others have some manner of legal ideology, even if it leads to terrible results sometimes. Beyond that, they have lifetime appointments. They don't need Trump anymore and owe him nothing.
Does sound like a best case scenario. Not good, but still best.
In fact, I believe most of these billionaires that hand pick the Supreme Court justices would love to get rid of trump. He is diverging much of their power.
It seems to me that he has handed the supreme court a gun with one bullet. The best outcome for the court would be to turn the gun on themselves.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.