-8

Yes, the Supreme Court COULD have declined the [presidential immunity] case, but then what? (blog.stephaniejones.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Saone@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/politics@lemmy.world

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“They could have just declined the case” is the overly simplistic but misleading version of Supreme Court law and practice being fed to laypersons by many celebrity television commentators who were rushed on air to breathlessly critique the Court’s grant of certiorari to Donald Trump’s presidential immunity petition.

But they’re not telling you the whole story.

Yes, the Court COULD have declined to take the case. But that’s only part of the story. Among the things the talking heads aren’t telling you is what would happen if the Court DIDN’T take the case.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 8 months ago

lower court rulings would stand.

[-] Saone@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 8 months ago

Had the Supreme Court declned to hear the case, that would not have made Trump’s immunity claim go away or clear the way for him to be held accountable. It would have just settled the issue only for one case, the January 6th prosecution in the DC Federal District Court.

But it would not have been settled anywhere else outside of the DC Circuit, including in Florida where Trump has also raised the same immunity claim in his documents case.

[-] neptune@dmv.social 6 points 8 months ago

They could have potentially had a summary judgement.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I understand the author's points. And if the general public felt that this Supreme Court was fair and apolitical, I would agree with her. But at least one judge is openly corrupt and taking bribes, and nothing is being done about it. And a majority of this court doesn't seem to care about precedent anymore. How can we possibly give them the benefit of the doubt anymore?

[-] dudinax@programming.dev 8 points 8 months ago

They could also meet and confirm the lower court's ruling within a week if they wanted to. They've made such fast decisions before when circumstances required it.

[-] njm1314@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Yeah, this just rings hollow. When a justice has such a severe conflict of interest and yet refuses to recuse himself it makes everything about her argument moot. We know that's not why they took the case.

this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024

-8 points (31.8% liked)

politics

19089 readers

3826 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News