Donald Trump uses the slow legal system to his advantage. The Supreme Court is helping ( www.cnn.com )

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Donald Trump’s claim that he should be shielded from criminal prosecution keeps the justices at the center of election-year controversy for several more months and means any verdict on Trump’s alleged subversion of the 2020 vote will not come before summer.

The country’s highest court wants the final word on the former president’s assertion of immunity, even if it may ultimately affirm a comprehensive ruling of the lower federal court that rejected Trump’s sweeping claim.

For Trump, Wednesday’s order amounts to another win from the justice system he routinely attacks. The justices’ intervention in the case, Trump v. United States, also marks another milestone in the fraught relationship between the court and the former president.

Cases related to his policies and his personal dealings consistently roiled the justices behind the scenes. At the same time, Trump, who appointed three of the nine justices, significantly influenced the court’s lurch to the right, most notably its 2022 reversal of nearly a half century of abortion rights and reproductive freedom.

Chainweasel ,

This is a violation of Trump's sixth amendment rights.

"the accused in a criminal prosecution shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial".

I say we open a rights violation case and see if we can get him his speedy trial.

electric_nan ,

Fascists pretend to care about the law, but all they really care about is power. Liberals pretend to care about power, but all they really care about is order.

CosmicCleric ,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

The foaming at the mouth on this topic in the comments is insane.

You want the Supreme Court to judge this. You can't get any more important than codifying and defining how much power the Office of the President actually has. And having a lower court do that won't carry the weight that that decision needs to have.

Just sit tight people. When the Supreme Court wants to they can move quickly, and something tells me they're going to move quickly on this one.

tacosplease ,

They scheduled the next stuff to happen toward the end of April. That's not fast. It nearly guarantees the case won't happen before the election. It won't happen at all after the election unless Biden wins. The Supreme Court fucked us here, and they absolutely know that.

CosmicCleric ,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

They scheduled the next stuff to happen toward the end of April. That’s not fast.

For them, that is.

It nearly guarantees the case won’t happen before the election.

No, it doesn't. There's a lot of time between April and November, and the court has a history of accelerating decisions when needed.

The Supreme Court fucked us here, and they absolutely know that.

If they wanted to fuck us they would just decide not to take the case, or take it on their normal schedule instead of the accelerated one in April.

Zaktor ,

And they'll find in the Colorado case that states can't remove insurrectionists until specifically convicted in a criminal trial, so that will also be tucked behind their delay. I even think they'll find that no, presidents are not perpetually above the law, but then stay any case that would kick either kick Trump off the ballot or send him to prison because now it's too close to the election and/or it's being appealed.

There's no real reason to take this case, particularly after refusing earlier, but they don't have to be blatant to get exactly the result they want.

PoliticallyIncorrect ,
@PoliticallyIncorrect@lemmy.world avatar

Wealthy people have decades using the slow legal system and other legal loopholes to take advantage of the capitalist system, they made the capitalist system so obviously they made it to work better for them than for the 99%.

merc ,

"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied"

Normally when people say that, it's because people can suffer if the the justice takes too long, even if it does eventually give the right result. In this case, it might literally be denied. If Trump wins he's going to do everything in his power to stop all legal proceedings against him and retaliate against anybody who dared to go against him.

I know complex cases can take a while, but really 4 years is too long. Even if there weren't the threat of the election and his being able to pardon himself, it's too long. This really should have been done before the midterm elections two years ago.

njm1314 ,

Won't be an issue unless idiots allow a Trump victory.

crusa187 ,

Obviously Trump would do this.

You can thank AG Merrick Garland for allowing this to happen, who did jack shit for 2 years until finally tapping in Jack Smith to actually do something to hold the traitor in chief accountable.

spider ,

You can thank AG Merrick Garland for allowing this to happen

...who ironically would've been a current Supreme Court justice himself were it not for McConnell's and Trump's f**kery.

crusa187 ,

You know, that’s pretty interesting to consider. Wonder what his performance as AG can tell us about how he would have been on SCOTUS.

Maybe we can still find out, if Biden admin resizes the court. Is it too late to do so before the presidential immunity hearing?

spider , (edited )

I think Biden had said long ago that he wouldn't do that no matter what; in this political environment it probably wouldn't happen anyway.

By the way, appellate courts sit right below the U.S. Supreme Court and there are currently 13 of them.

Some legal experts argue there should be one supreme court justice per appellate court, because that was the ratio when the appellate court system was first established in 1891 -- nine supreme court justices and nine appellate courts.

dhork ,

Garland was Obama's compromise choice to make it through the Republican Senate. Before the pick was made, one Senator (might have been Graham, but I can't find a quote right now) specifically said that that he thought Obama's pick would be DoA, because it would be too liberal, and not a more acceptable, centrist choice like Merrick Garland.

That's what prompted McConnell (and Graham, who was Judiciary Chairman IIRC) to simply sit in the nomination and not allow it to progress. Because they knew that if it were sent to a vote, it would have passed, and gambled on having the open seat drive turnout for Trump.

It Garland was on the court instead of Gorsuch, things might not be all that much different. Recall that Dobbs was decided 6-3, which means that, all other things being equal, Gorsuch's vote was unnecessary.

RotaryKeyboard ,
@RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

No, the Supreme Court is not "helping" Donald Trump. This is just a rage-bait news piece, and the people who swallow the intimation that the Court is taking the case in order to get Donald Trump elected are falling for it. The Supreme Court isn't playing kingmaker. They are doing their job.

Bipta ,

They're helping Trump if they slow walk this urgent case. If they're speedy, as justice must be, then, and only then, are they doing their jobs.

RotaryKeyboard ,
@RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

And they are being unusually speedy. The article even says as much.

Overall, the timetable is fast compared to the regular calendar for high court briefing, oral arguments, and eventual resolution, which typically plays out over many months or close to a year. (Other cases accepted this month for review will not be heard until next fall, with decisions likely in 2025.)

gloss ,

How exactly do you know the motives of the extreme conservative Justices, half of whom were appointed by Trump? Are you a mind reader?

Your comment is the real rage bait.

RotaryKeyboard ,
@RotaryKeyboard@lemmy.sdf.org avatar

How exactly do you know the motives of the extreme conservative Justices, half of whom were appointed by Trump? Are you a mind reader?

That’s my point.

We don’t know what the motives are of the Supreme Court. Yet because people who want to see Trump removed from the ballot didn’t get the decision they want to see fast enough, they’re inventing conspiracy theories of the Supreme Court manipulating things to benefit Trump, and the media is playing right along, saying they’re “helping” him. It’s precisely this kind of behavior that makes me despise the far right. (Well, not just this behavior, but still.)

I don’t want to see Donald Trump anywhere near the oval office ever again. But I do want to see a decision from the Supreme Court on this specific question, because I want to forever silence the people who have been trying to create a “unitary executive” in the United States.

cabron_offsets ,

I fear we’re headed toward a dark future. Why the SC “justices” think they’ll be spared is puzzling.

MagicShel ,

They are rich sociopaths. If you have money and zero empathy for your fellow humans, your future can't really get dark.

Asafum ,

Exactly.

Imagine thinking we don't live in a plutocracy... I hate our public brainwashing "education." We indoctrinate kids into thinking America The Great is a thing, or For the People. Yeah... It's For the rich People...

(Not that I want private schools. I just want public education to be about reality, not an indoctrination into brainwashed subservient society)

cabron_offsets ,

It can get very, very dark for them. Ask Mike Pence.

Lemming6969 ,

Maybe but nothing will happen to them and you'll suffer as a result. You won't be spared... That's the reality.

Burn_The_Right ,

Fuck Merrick Garland. He did this.

MindSkipperBro12 ,

Biden needs to pull a Jackson and start ignoring the Supreme Court.

Burn_The_Right ,

The entire U.S. needs to start ignoring the "supreme" court.

dhork ,

If Biden wins, and the Democrats pull off a majority in the House and Senate, they need to pack the court, Fillibuster be damned. Expand it to 11 on July 2025, and 13 in July of 2027. The recent decisions, as unpopular as they are, should build up enough popular support for this.

Then they need to sit down with Republicans and say "Hey! We'll give you a choice. Work with us to reform the Court to add term limits via amendment and make any single sudden vacancy less of a political football, or watch as Dark Brandon appoints 4 Liberal justices in their early 40s to lifetime appointments."

halferect ,

First off biden will never pack the court, second the democrats are going to lose the senate. Republicans will never agree to term limits and I don't think democrats will either, they are both obsessed with power and any limits will be shot down. We are fucked no matter what, it's just how fast we are fucked. (I would also add that this is politicians and not the people they are supposed to represent)

dhork ,

I would not underestimate how pissed off the liberal electorate is at the Court right now. And while you are correct that Democrats are unlikely to retain the Senate, they were also not likely to keep it last time, and they did.

Even if Biden is not inclined to do so, if Democrats do manage it there will be a push for it.

And it's been demonstrated that Republicans only respond to force (metaphorical, in this case). The way to get them to support term limits is to limit their choices so if they don't, they get an even worse outcome.

Veneroso ,

Biden will happily hand Trump the presidency "out of respect for the office" and be immediately arrested for the show trial as Trump begins his 1000 year reign as Lord Emperor.

JoMiran ,
@JoMiran@lemmy.ml avatar

Fuck Mitch McConnell, Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kennedy. They did this.

FTFY

negativenull ,
@negativenull@lemmy.world avatar

The supreme court is picking the next president, just like they did with Bush v. Gore. They are just doing it before the election, instead of after.

cogman ,

This is worse. Bush v Gore was about an election that just happened. It was about an actual case.

Here, the supreme Court took a very narrowly decided case, ignored the decision, and then changed the question being asked to one they want to answer.

Further, the special prosecutor asked them months ago "hey, can you take up this case now rather than delaying everything" which is something previous courts have done (for example, Bush v Gore).

But instead, they delayed, pushed to the lower court, delayed since more,.

It's rat fucking to the extreme. The Supreme Court has no legitimacy.

SonofaGeorge ,
@SonofaGeorge@mstdn.ca avatar

@cogman @negativenull And this surprises you? #BoughtAndPaidFor

cogman ,

Where did I say it was surprising? It's frustrating.

Zink ,

Lol yeah. If we get to Election Day and Trump is in jail or in Russia while Haley is on the ballot, THAT would be a surprise.

But Trump having his assets messed with, delaying cases, getting the nomination, losing to Biden, and then having his followers do more violent shit? That’s basically as expected.

grue ,

No less than three of the current Supreme Court "Justices" were on Bush's legal team in Bush v. Gore.

merc ,

It's insane that in the US people know the political leaning of their supreme court justices. I don't know of any other country where that's the case.

Cataphract ,

That's quite interesting. Didn't know that wasn't the normal and now I have something to look into. It seems like the political leanings is the only thing that's ever talked about so will be interesting to see how they do it else where.

merc ,

Didn’t know that wasn’t the normal

This is most Americans whenever this sort of thing comes up. Most Americans are very unaware of anything that happens beyond US borders, and assume that the way things happen in the US is normal worldwide. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world is exposed to news and other media from the US as well as many other countries.

If you live in Australia you get British media, Aussie media and US media. If you live in the UK you get UK media, American media and European media.

Even in non-English countries, Hollywood media is everywhere, even if it's translated to other languages. Hollywood offers a distorted view of the US, but it's still media made with US ideas and biases, so it exposes the rest of the world to how the US thinks. The closest most Americans get to foreign media is an occasional break-out hit like Squid Game.

It's frustrating how isolated the US is, because decisions made in the US affect the whole world. But, when the people making those decisions don't know much of anything about the world outside the US, they often don't know that there's a better (or at least different) way.

Cataphract ,

Jesus Fucking Christ dude, I was talking about judges and you took this opportunity to rant for multiple paragraphs about media. It's the fucking internet, I can get news from multiple sources and not just "squid games". Commenter above talked about German judges political leanings, as I'm sure plenty of other countries do as well after researching further on it. UK and Australia are the outliers (with Canada, still looking into them) and have their own sets of problems, instead of talking about those you've decided to make an anti-US shitpost.

Britain’s only transgender judge has quit after claiming she can no longer do the job without politicizing the judiciary. Master Victoria McCloud said her publicly known status as someone who transitioned from a man to a woman meant she was “now political every time I choose where to pee”. “I have reached the conclusion that in 2024 the national situation and present judicial framework is no longer such that it is possible, in a dignified way, to be both ‘trans’ and a salaried, fairly prominent judge in the UK,” she added. (link)

Man successfully sues Judge Salvatore Vasta for wrongful imprisonment, He said Judge Vasta denied the plaintiff procedural fairness and had engaged in a "gross and obvious irregularity of procedure". (link) Judges to be protected against civil lawsuits after Salvatore Vasta sued over wrongful imprisonment, The federal government is preparing to introduce reforms granting greater protections to inferior court judges after a landmark case in which a wrongfully imprisoned man successfully sued Salvatore Vasta. (link)

So why is the Australian appointment process devoid of scrutiny, allowed to unfold in the shadows of cabinet confidentiality and undisclosed “consultations” with state governments, the chief justice and maybe a few legal peak bodies? So, absent a public confirmation process, how does the attorney general divine where a potential appointee sits on these issues of public and legal policy? This is done indirectly through a review of previous judgments or writings and speeches delivered by a candidate. Peers in the legal profession will be canvassed and the opinion of the high court chief justice will be gained – although this might be to assess if an appointee would be happily greeted by the current judges rather than obtaining a view as to the candidate’s outlook on specific legal issues. State governments are asked to submit names for consideration but normally the states won’t be given an opportunity to comment on the final shortlist.

Being able to appoint high court judges is one of the great prizes of winning federal elections. The court shapes Australia. It decided that native title survived British colonisation, ruled on whether the commonwealth could nationalise the banks, and whether persons denied refugee status could be indefinitely detained. No prime minister will ever give away the power to make these appointments and none to date have seriously entertained even lifting the curtain to allow public to glimpse the process. (link)

Australia urgently needs an independent body to hold powerful judges to account, It is a vacuum that has allowed sexist, racist and other troubling conduct to go largely unaddressed. Unlike, for instance, the legal or medical professions, or the public service, these avenues for accountability are not designed to provide an independent, standing institutional response when an individual has a complaint about the conduct of a judge — be that on or off the bench. Removal of a judge can only occur if both houses of parliament agree to it. It is an all-or-nothing option subject to partisan influences, political opportunism and argy-bargy. There has never been a federal judge removed in Australia.

The allegations of incompetence, rudeness, and bias against federal circuit court judge, Sandy Street, and incompetence, rudeness and unfairness against Judge Salvatore Vasta, that emerged over the course of last year provide us with two others. For months, there was no institutional response to the conduct of these two judges. This was despite a number of complaints, including from the Law Council of Australia. Finally, the chief judge of the Federal Circuit Court, Will Alstergen, indicated that the judges had agreed to undertake mentoring. He also defended the current Federal Circuit Court complaints procedures. Also last year, a Northern Territory judge, Greg Borchers, was found to have made comments that contained negative racial stereotypes. It was conduct the then Law Council of Australia President Arthur Moses branded “disparaging, discriminatory and offensive, insulting and humiliating to Indigenous Australians based solely on their race”. (link)

Looking into it further, seems like they all have their failings and political stances are included in all of them. Your high horse just has a nice robe thrown around it's wooden legs so no one can see what's going on. If you want to continue talking about "judges" I'm all for it, coming to see your wall of text about US media is just fucking sad. "now I have something to look into, will be interesting to see how they do it else where".

CitizenKong , (edited )

In Germany, the judges of the Bundesverfassungsgericht might have political leanings too, but they can only have that position for up to 12 years (after which they can't be reelected) and have to abdicate when reaching the age of 68.

TankovayaDiviziya ,

Yeah, I think it would take another tumultuous period for America before they could reform. Plenty of corruption in US and other places happen due to legal and logical sophistry.

ChunkMcHorkle ,
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

Quite. And Bush v. Gore was in 2000; in 2001, just four months into office, Bush appointed Roberts to the DC appellate court, which was a very cushy appointment for a lawyer who'd never even been a judge.

Then, in 2005 when a Supreme Court seat finally opened up (Sandra Day O'Connor retired) Bush gave it to John Roberts. Surprise, surprise.

But wait, there's more. When Chief Justice William Rehnquist happened to die during Roberts' SCOTUS confirmation hearings, Bush gave Roberts the Chief Justice position.

In other words, in just four short years after Bush v. Gore, John Roberts rocketed from being nothing but a very well-connected lawyer straight up to Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court -- with nothing more than a brief stint as an appellate court judge in between on his resume, and he even got that with zero prior experience on the bench.

Zink ,

Thanks I hate it.

ganksy ,
@ganksy@lemmy.world avatar

We will know by the amount of time it takes them to reach judgement on his insane argument. By June SCOTUS is fully complicit.

cogman ,

It shouldn't have taken any time. They should have denied cert.

The fact that at least 4 justices granted it is beyond ridiculous.

Further, they've delayed the hearing until the end of April, which is extremely stupid, they are hearing cases now.

They may not even issue a decision in June with the rest of the cases, it may be next year. And if that's the case and trump is elected, he could stop the hearing in it's tracks by pardoning himself.

They seriously took the position "yeah, the ruling that said in this specific instance with Trump, a president cannot be immune. A perfectly reasonable take given there's so many more mundane reasons why the FBI might convict a former president.

MisterMoo ,

I disagree. I think this question is novel enough that it needs Supreme Court review, not merely letting a lower court ruling stand. That opinion needs to come out at light speed though.

Zombiepirate ,
@Zombiepirate@lemmy.world avatar

The question isn't novel though.

The foundation of the Constitution (and any legitimate constitutional government) is that the law applies to everyone, even the executive.

This question of presidential immunity was answered in 1788 with an emphatic "no." There was no reason for them to take this case other than to delay the ruling.

MisterMoo ,

If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases or just do what seems to be impossible on the internet: admit you’re wrong.

No one is denying that this may be an open-and-shut case but the Supreme Court has never taken up the question so…. it’s novel.

Zombiepirate ,
@Zombiepirate@lemmy.world avatar

If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases

United States v. Nixon (1974): This landmark decision addressed whether President Richard Nixon could claim executive privilege to avoid turning over tape recordings in the Watergate scandal. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that while the president enjoys a qualified immunity from judicial process under certain circumstances, this immunity is not absolute. The Court held that the need for evidence in a trial outweighed the president's claim of executive privilege, leading to Nixon's resignation.

I assume you're going to admit that you were wrong now? Or is that impossible on the Internet?

Please explain why the president would need to provide evidence for a trial that was unconstitutional.

MisterMoo ,

That case was about executive privilege, not criminal statutes.

Zombiepirate , (edited )
@Zombiepirate@lemmy.world avatar

Please explain why the president would need to provide evidence for a trial that was unconstitutional.

My reply was three sentences long. Please try not to get distracted, this will be on the test.

cogman ,

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/d.c.-circuit-rules-trump-is-not-immune-from-prosecution

Read the district court's well cited and researched ruling doing exactly that.

MisterMoo ,

Not a Supreme Court case. Why are you getting upvotes?

cogman ,

Hmmm I wonder.

Could it be because, as I said, this ruling cites multiple supreme court cases in context? That it provides you exactly what you asked for if you'd simply read it?

Nah, that can't be it. Guess it'll remain a mystery.

cogman , (edited )

If the question was so novel then why did the supreme Court punt it to the lower court and then ignore the lower courts narrowing? What purpose did that serve?

This is rat fucking.

And it's a dumb question "is the president a dictator"? Are you serious? How can the correct answer be anything besides "no"? This is the easiest question to answer that's ever been asked.

The consequence of "yes" is that Biden gets to order the assassination of some senators and justices and can call off the upcoming election. That's how ridiculous this is.

The lower court wrote 57 pages of heavily cited legal theory and history proving "no". There's no reason for the Supreme Court to ignore all that.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Wednesday’s action by the high court, made up of six conservatives and three liberals, plainly gives Trump a new measure of success and buys him more time before possible trial on election subversion in Washington, DC.

Overall, the timetable is fast compared to the regular calendar for high court briefing, oral arguments, and eventual resolution, which typically plays out over many months or close to a year.

Smith, earlier this month, cited the nature of the alleged crimes as he urged the justices to let the DC Circuit decision against presidential immunity stand and allow the case to go to trial.

Earlier in February, the Supreme Court held a special oral argument session on whether states could keep Trump off presidential ballots under a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding future office.

The justices appeared ready to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that would prevent Trump from running for office because of his attempts to overturn the valid 2020 election results.

That case brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg alleges a cover-up to conceal payments before the 2016 election to adult film star Stormy Daniels, who said she had an affair with Trump.

The original article contains 1,191 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 84%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •