Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.
But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.
.
Judges absolutely consider the precedent they are setting when issuing rulings. See: the ACA, Citizens United, etc.
Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.
.
You’re strawmanning me pretty hard (hopefully unintentionally). I’m not arguing for the courts to do anything; my point was that there will be negative consequences no matter what they do.
Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.
I’m going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.
Edward Teach’s comment:
Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., “why should [they] care”).
My response:
I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. (“Maybe they shouldn’t [care about the consequences]”.) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.
Edward Teach’s comment:
Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn’t do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.
☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.
you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.
Now you’re just repeating yourself. You didn’t even read the comment, did you? You’re right, this is a waste of time.
because I’m right
I did. the part of my comment you didn’t read is that it changes nothing.
that’s why I said it
Only if the Supreme Court, whose job it is to actually determine what is lawful according US Constitution (and then other federal law and precedent) decide they are not going to do their jobs anymore.
The whole reason Supreme Court justices have appointment for life is so that their decisions can’t be used against them by those in power to punish for a ruling those in power don’t like. Supremes have almost “plot armor” in this regard. What do they have to fear from making a ruling that republicans don’t like?
Their billionaire sugar daddies will dump them?