“To understand how truly remarkable it is that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider former President Donald Trump’s demand for absolute immunity from criminal prosecution, it is necessary to have some sense of how the court treats other criminal defendants.”
“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”
“Justice Neil Gorsuch set the tone for this approach in 2019, when he complained that legal challenges to the death penalty were often used to stall or even derail execution.”
“The Supreme Court has added more and more constraints upon prisoners’ ability to challenge constitutional errors. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas in particular have urged that the longstanding right to challenge state court convictions in federal court be effectively gutted”
“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.”
“The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rightly ridiculed it — and issued a comprehensive, tightly reasoned and unanimous opinion that presented no good cause for further review.”
“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.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/29/trump-special-treatment-supreme-court-00144138
Not only is taking up the case contentious, but the slow walking of a relatively straight forward legal proceeding, one which has the public’s interest, in a way that could ultimately effect the Presidential Election is also questionable, and could even be interpreted as an orchestrated form of election interference
Certainly suspicious given this Court is treating a presidential candidate of the party that appointed six of the nine justices with special favor so as to materially aid his presidential campaign.
“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”
“Justice Neil Gorsuch set the tone for this approach in 2019, when he complained that legal challenges to the death penalty were often used to stall or even derail execution.”
“The Supreme Court has added more and more constraints upon prisoners’ ability to challenge constitutional errors. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas in particular have urged that the longstanding right to challenge state court convictions in federal court be effectively gutted”
“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.”
“The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rightly ridiculed it — and issued a comprehensive, tightly reasoned and unanimous opinion that presented no good cause for further review.”
“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.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/29/trump-special-treatment-supreme-court-00144138
Not only is taking up the case contentious, but the slow walking of a relatively straight forward legal proceeding, one which has the public’s interest, in a way that could ultimately effect the Presidential Election is also questionable, and could even be interpreted as an orchestrated form of election interference
Certainly suspicious given this Court is treating a presidential candidate of the party that appointed six of the nine justices with special favor so as to materially aid his presidential campaign.
