If this was a functioning #democracy, we wouldn’t be waiting for 2 #justices who took secret gifts from #billionaires and 3 others appointed by a criminal to tell us whether it’s OK for the president to murder his rivals.
Amazing that, even at his age, Alito can stand on his head to read the law.
"One particularly notable hypothetical came from Alito, who raised the prospect that an outgoing president who loses a closely contested race but fears indictment upon leaving office might try to remain in power, creating 'a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy. ' ”
#Alito seems to assume the prosecution of #Tfg (or any former president) will be corrupt and political, but doesn’t deal with the real (and probable) situation that actual crimes were committed that require invoking the #ruleoflaw .
I don’t think that the right wing members of the U.S. Supreme Court in general have pushed Michael Dreeben nearly as hard as I thought they would. (So far.) That may bode well for the U.S. Or it may not.
#MichaelDreeben is one of the brightest legal minds in the US. He would have made a great #scotus justice and thankfully is on the right side of the #ruleoflaw. I have not seen a single sitting justice lay a glove on him yet.
"Justice Merchan Denies Trump's Presidential Immunity Motion
Justice Merchan emphasized that Trump's delay in filing the motion was unjustifiable and raised questions about the sincerity of his legal strategy."
"In short, Justice Merchan has denied Trump's motion for presidential immunity, citing its untimeliness and lack of merit."
Trump's #legal team appear to have misinterpreted what #SCOTUS Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a 2009 article to back up their claims that Trump can still cite #PresidentialImmunity once he has left office, as the judge—who was nominated to the SCOTUS bench by Trump—was only talking about incumbent presidents.
“The president cannot function, & the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence,” the brief said, “if the president faces #criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office.” [coups aren’t official acts]
The brief, #Trump’s main submission to the justices before the case is argued on April 25, continued to press an expansive understanding of #PresidentialImmunity, one that it said was required by the very structure of the #Constitution.
If #SCOTUS does not rule until late June or sends the case back to the lower courts for further consideration of the scope of any #immunity, the #trial might not take place until after the election.
If #Trump prevails in the #election, he could order the #DOJ to drop the charges.
When #SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, it said it would decide:“Whether & if so to what extent does a fmr president enjoy #PresidentialImmunity from #criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve #OfficialActs during his tenure in office.”
That sentence has been closely scrutinized. On the one hand, it seemed to exclude from consideration #Trump’s argument that his #acquittal at his 2nd #impeachment, on charges that he incited #insurrection, blocked any prosecution on similar charges.
Chief Justice #JohnRoberts is giving prosecutors a week to respond to #Trump’s request to keep his federal #criminal election-subversion #trial on hold while he tries to persuade #SCOTUS to scuttle it entirely on the grounds of #PresidentialImmunity.
Smith has already urged the courts to resolve the #immunity dispute quickly so that Trump’s Washington, DC trial, originally set for March 4, can begin later this year.
Trump asked the justices to put on hold an appeals court ruling that rejected his broad claim of #PresidentialImmunity in relation to events leading up to the #Jan6 attack on the Capitol.
If #Trump wins the election [I can’t find an emoji for spitting to ward off 🧿 ], he would be in a position to order that the charges be #dismissed or seek to #pardon himself.
Trump ultimately would like #SCOTUS to hear his case & overturn the appeals court decision, but before the justices can reach that issue they have to decide whether to put the lower court ruling on hold.
“Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing fmr Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing fmr President #Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, ‘not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.’”
“Fmr President #Trump's alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented #assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role - the counting & certifying of the Electoral College votes - thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures & the will of the Congress.“