Yes, the Supreme Court COULD have declined the [presidential immunity] case, but then what?
Yes, the Supreme Court COULD have declined the [presidential immunity] case, but then what?
“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.
lower court rulings would stand.
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.
They could have potentially had a summary judgement.
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?
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.
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.