Supreme Court Unsure If Inciting A Terrorist Attack On The Country & Leading A Treasonous Criminal Conspiracy To Overthrow The Government Is Merely One Of A President's "Official Duties"

MAGA members of the Supreme Court are now part of Trump's defense team.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to consider Donald Trump’s theory of “complete presidential immunity” is unsupported by law, precedent, or common fucking sense. It’s nothing but a blatant helping hand to Trump to push his criminal trials past the November 2024 election date. Even the most partisian and crooked hacks on the court know Trump’s claim is horseshit, but by dragging their feet and wasting weeks and months of time, they can give Trump a de facto version of the absolute immunity he seeks. This decision is both astonishing in its lawlessness and completely expected.

Supreme Court Picks Up Where the Jan. 6 Mob Left Off
Just like the Capitol rioters, SCOTUS' right-wing is actively trying to help Trump illegitimately get back into the White House.
David Rothkopf, The Daily Beast, March 1, 2024

It is not just that the leader of one of our two political parties has declared that if reelected he will assume the powers of a dictator. It is not just that he and his followers actively support enemies of the United States. It is not just that he and members of his party in the U.S. Congress seek to strip away more fundamental rights from American women and men, or that they have already demonstrated they are willing to tolerate egregious abuses of presidential power, or that they will abet efforts to steal election results with which they disagree.

It is all these things. But as we saw again this week, while opponents of fundamental American values control the House of Representatives, have a significant voice in the U.S. Senate, and aspire to reclaim the White House, the branch of government that has been most corrupted by the American right remains the United States Supreme Court. . . .

The Court’s decision to hear the Trump immunity case was outrageous, legally indefensible, and handled procedurally in a way that made it clear they were no longer acting as a court, but rather as the judicial arm of the Republican Party.

They took a case they should not have accepted, agreeing to hear arguments that were already rejected in an expertly argued appeals court decision. Just as damagingly, they did so in a way that—regardless of their final ruling—would mean American voters would likely not hear a verdict before November’s election.

It is a dark irony. They have chosen to hear the Department of Justice’s case against Donald Trump for election interference in a way that is itself election interference. . . .

Time and again, the Supreme Court has been at the vanguard of the right-wing’s movement to reverse social progress, while also increasing the wealth and power of the movement’s patrons. And, repeatedly, the Court has been brazen in its willingness to play politics, the letter of the law, legal tradition, and any semblance of legal logic or ethics be damned. . . .

Why conclude that the decision to hear the immunity case was purely political? Several reasons. First, the argument advanced by Trump and his lawyers that a president is above the law is, in the well-chosen words of Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, “a proposition that, if affirmed, would destroy the moral, legal, and political foundations of the court itself.”

Further, the arguments made by Trump’s lawyers were expertly dissected and discarded by a bipartisan panel of three judges on the D.C. Circuit of Appeals. Their decision was so thoroughly grounded in law and precedent that frankly, only a Supreme Court with no regard for law or precedent would determine they had to consider any additional aspect of the matter.

In fact, the Trump immunity claims are so laughable that few expect even this Supreme Court to uphold them. This may be why, in lieu of helping Trump with a decision, they decided to throw him the one lifeline upon which he most depended, a delay that would push a verdict in the trial to the other side of election day. . . .

Special Counsel Jack Smith asked them to rule on the issue as far back as December. They could have ruled on it then, or in an instant following the D.C. Circuit decision by simply agreeing not to hear the case and thereby accepting the D.C. Circuit’s findings. . . .

Could they have moved faster? Of course. The Court accepted the case of Bush v. Gore on Dec. 9, 2000. It heard arguments on Dec. 11. It issued a decision on the next day.

The Court made a choice that they knew would have political consequences. They knew those consequences would redound to the benefit of Donald Trump. And with eyes wide open they provided him with those benefits. . . .

Clarence Thomas and his right-wing colleagues have picked up where the mob his wife helped support left off on Jan. 6.

SCOTUS Is Slow-Walking for Trump
There isn’t a legal reason for delaying his immunity claim.
Sonja West, Slate, March 1, 2024

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear the case in which former President Donald Trump claims a virtually king-like right of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. The court’s two-paragraph statement grants the case and sets the argument date at the end of April, without explanation. . . .

This was an extraordinarily political act. They had before them a menu of options on how to handle this unprecedented case, and from those options, they chose one of the most beneficial for Trump’s chances of reelection. . . .

In fact, at every point in this process, the court has acted exactly as Trump’s legal team wished they would. First, the justices denied a mid-December request to take the question on an expedited basis, forcing it instead to go through a burdensome and predictably meaningless hearing in a lower court. Once the case returned to them, they then stayed silent for a bewildering two weeks before eventually announcing they would take the case. And, finally, they once again refused to act quickly and instead scheduled the oral argument a full seven weeks away, in late April. . . .

Scholars and journalists who cover the court are left struggling over how to explain to the public the momentousness of what is really happening. . . .

The question of Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution arises out of the federal case against him for election subversion. It is a long-shot argument . . . that every judge who has considered it so far has rejected. . . .

[H]istorical precedent supports Smith’'s repeated requests for swift action in a case that involves an urgent issue of presidential fitness for office. In 1974, the Supreme Court accelerated its review of then-President Richard Nixon's claim of immunity from having to turn over Oval Office tapes related to the Watergate investigation. . . . Had our current court acted similarly in this case, we would have had a final ruling weeks ago . . .

A person with a 50–50 chance at winning the next presidential election has been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States and to obstruct and overturn an election, and the highest court in the land sees no reason to hurry.

Why Is Trump Getting Special Treatment From the Supreme Court?
The justices are handling Trump's case far differently than most criminal defendants.
Aziz Huq, Politico, February 29, 2024

In recent years, the Roberts Court has shown greater and greater impatience with criminal defendants’ efforts to forestall punishment — even if the outcome would be cruel, needlessly painful or simply unjustified. The effect of this new hostility to delay is most sharply felt in the death penalty context. But a general hostility to foot-dragging in criminal cases is a through line in the court’s docket. . . .

Outside the capital punishment cases, the Supreme Court has added more and more constraints upon prisoners’ ability to challenge constitutional errors. . . .

All this makes the Supreme Court’s decision to hear Trump’s appeal for absolute immunity from all criminal charges even more unusual, and troubling.

Start with the weakness of Trump’s argument. There is absolutely no constitutional text, no precedent and no authority in the original debates over the Constitution’s ratification to support the idea for a former president’s absolute immunity. The argument advanced by Trump’s counsel is patently absurd. . . .

[T]here’s no good reason for the Supreme Court to take it up and review it as a matter of law — especially given how thorough the D.C. Circuit was. . . . [T]he court’s erstwhile concern with “unjustified delay” in criminal cases would seem to cut hard against hearing the case. It is, after all, a matter of common knowledge that the former president’s legal strategy is to run out the clock and thus prevent a trial prior to the election. . . .

Given that this scarce commodity is so infrequently used to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, the question must be asked: Why now? And why for this defendant?

There is no good answer. It is hard to see any legally sound reason why the Supreme Court should have decided to step in to hear Trump’s implausible and constitutionally destructive claim for absolute criminal immunity — especially when it has refused to hear so many other criminal defendants’ far more meritorious claims. . . .

[T]he fact of the matter is that Trump is getting the kind of treatment that other criminal defendants do not get. His delaying tactics are being embraced, rather than swatted away.

Illegitimate Partisan Hack Supreme Court Joins Trump’s Attack On America
What? If anything we’re being too gentle.
Evan Hurst, Wonkette, February 29, 2024

The formerly esteemed Court announced yesterday it will hear Trump’s appeal in his permanent immunity “I am the king of Jesus, hear me roar” case, instead of simply affirming all the lower courts’ rulings and letting the criminal case in DC finally proceed against Trump. Any real judge would have done that, because the appeals court’s unanimous ruling was so incredibly thorough, and because the case at hand is literally over whether presidents have permanent immunity from all crimes they commit in office, as long as they swear on the Bible it was part of their “official duties.” . . .

To be clear, all the judges who have heard this case so far have laughed it out of their courtrooms. That’s what these partisan hacks feel the need to consider. In the eyes of this joke of a Supreme Court, trying to overthrow the Republic because you’re panty-pissing angry at the American people for not giving you a second term might possibly be construed as “official duties.” Or at least the president currently having the tantrum might sincerely believe that. Or at least it’s worth considering the question at length.

We don’t have a Supreme Court anymore. We have Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas nervously grinning with prematurely ejaculating boners whenever a Christian fascist with power farts in their general direction, and we have their apprentices — the credibly accused sex pest, Aunt Lydia, and the redhead — who occasionally try to convince the public they are real judges, but not often enough to merit mention beyond this paragraph. . . .

Oral arguments will be the week of April 22. Why so long into the future? We can only imagine the Supreme Court has some important jacking off to do between now and then, because there’s no other discernible reason. They fucked around long enough getting us to this point. This all but guarantees there won’t be a Trump verdict before the election, much less (probably) a trial. And that’s assuming the Supreme Court rules after all that former presidents aren’t gods.

That’s right, it’s possible that four years later, America’s institutions will have failed fully enough that the man who incited a terrorist attack on the country in front of our faces, who fomented a treasonous criminal conspiracy to overturn the election and overthrow the government, just won’t face accountability, and could even be re-elected. And if that happens, the story of the end of this American experiment will be accompanied by a picture of the Republican clownfucks in robes who drove the final nail into the coffin.

If there is any good news to be had, it’s that if this Supreme Court rules presidents have permanent immunity as long as they say “Simon Says,” then Joe Biden is free to have Trump assassinated by SEAL Team Six, just like Judge Florence Pan asked during the trial. You’ll recall that Trump’s lawyer said Biden would first have to be impeached and convicted in Congress to be prosecuted.

And guess what Chuck Schumer’s Senate ain’t ever goddamn doin’?

And yes, that’s how literally bumblefucking stupid and completely made up Trump’s “legal” argument is here. That’s the question Sam Alito and his fellow MAGA candy stripers feel the need to consider carefully.

By the way, does anybody believe Donald Trump really cares about the judges’ answer to this question, or that he feels there’s some great constitutional issue to be resolved? No. He’s just throwing shit at the wall to delay, delay, delay, so he can try to slither into the presidency again and cancel all the prosecutions against him. He’s not hiding it.

And, well, the Supreme Court apparently thinks Trump’s shit-throwing is a game of fetch.

It’s hard to know exactly what the timeline might look like, but if oral arguments are in May, we’ll probably have a ruling by the end of June or so, says Mark Joseph Stern. (His article is worth reading in full, as it examines all the ways SCOTUS could really drag its dick here.) . . .

We know the hostile foreign attacks on the election for the benefit of America’s greatest living enemy Donald Trump have already begun, and that a majority of the institutional Republican Party is eagerly aiding and abetting those enemy attacks. Trump just has to run out the clock and make it to November.

And lookie lookie! Shit’s all tied up in Georgia because a Black DA might have ended up dating one of the lawyers on her team, and the judge in the stolen classified documents case in Florida is such a Trump acolyte we wouldn’t be surprised to learn her mirror is plastered with Tiger Beat covers with Trump’s face on them.

The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped
The court is fundamentally antidemocratic—and the only way to limit the damage it can do is to reduce its power, budget, and lack of accountability.
Elie Mystal, The Nation, March 1, 2024

The Supreme Court must be made to pay a price—a political, institutional, professional price—for its ongoing political thuggery lightly disguised as jurisprudence. . . .

These people—and I’m including both the conservatives and the liberals here—act like they’re untouchable because that is how everybody else treats them. The nine justices are the nepo-babies of American democracy: They’ve earned nothing, yet act like they own the entire world. Every other institution in this country treats the Supreme Court with unfailing respect and total acquiescence to its power. Why? What have these people done to deserve the authority to wield power without question or resistance? . . .

[T]he Supreme Court justices can waft through this country, giving rights to some, taking away rights from others, and the people just shrug. The court operates like a monarch, bestowing flowers on their favored champions and thorns on their enemies. . . . Protests are minimal and short-lived. The justices are allowed to go about the rest of their lives, more or less normally. . . . [T]he court's greatest institutional accomplice is the media, which largely insists on covering the nine law shamans as they wish to be covered, instead of as the unelected, unaccountable poison that enfeebles the rest of American democracy. . . .

The Supreme Court moans and complains about its press coverage all the time, with justices like Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett complaining with increasing intensity in recent years. It is insane to me that these people think they are entitled both to rule with supremacy and to receive favorable press, especially considering that the vast majority of the time the press does exactly what they want. . . . [T]he press dutifully leaves the nine justices of the Supreme Court alone and allows them to speak only through their extremist, unhinged opinions and orders. . . .

Conservatives are more authoritarian-curious by nature, but I’ve found that liberals are the most eager to treat the antidemocratic Supreme Court as if it wears a laurel crown. That’s because liberals believe that some of our most cherished ideals about human rights and human dignity can be achieved only through a powerful high court with unquestionable authority. That’s the mistake I have been guilty of in the past. I have overemphasized Supreme Court rulings to, say, desegregate schools, while underestimating the importance of social movements, unyielding activism, and, frankly, the National Guard in forcing desegregation on a South that would never have just allowed Ruby Bridges to walk into a schoolhouse because of a ruling on a piece of paper.

All of this veneration of the Supreme Court must end if we are ever to rein in these justices. This court has proven with its actions—through one politically motivated decision after another—that it is unfit to wield the power that it does.

As many have written, the court’s decision to delay Donald Trump's trial, functionally indefinitely, is indefensible and a clear indication of political posturing instead of the swift application of justice. But that decision is just the latest in a decade-long string of rulings meant to help Republicans achieve their long-standing political goals. From abortion to voting rights, affirmative action, labor laws, gun laws, environmental regulations, financial regulations, public bigotry disguised as religion—it has been years since you needed to know anything about the law to predict the Supreme Court’s rulings . . . Most, if not all, of these policy initiatives are ones Republicans cannot enact through elections and legislation, so the Supreme Court comes in and decrees by fiat all that the Republicans cannot accomplish through democracy. . . .

The first step toward stopping the Supreme Court’s political actions is to treat the justices as political actors and subject them to all of the scrutiny, pressure, and protest normal political actors face every day. . . . Supreme Court justices should be treated with at least as much disrespect as any football stadium can give to Ted Cruz. The justices can be subjected to at least as much political coverage as the freaking New Hampshire primary. . . .

Recognize that the Supreme Court is the enemy of democracy, not its protector, and start covering its justices that way. This is true for all of the justices, even the “liberal” ones I like and generally agree with. . . .

These people are not our friends; they are not here to help, and at any moment they can take from us that which we should value most: our ability to democratically govern ourselves. The court has been taking that away from us, fairly consistently, for the past 24 years, ever since it anointed George W. Bush as president in 2000 despite the fact that Bush lost the popular vote and likely would have lost the electoral count had all the votes (both undervotes and overvotes) been recounted in Florida. We failed to punish the court for its overreach then, and that failure has only emboldened the court to become what it is today.