When it comes to Donald J. The Supreme Court's questions about Trump v. United States were to answer the central question of whether Donald Trump had presidential immunity, as he claims he does in the US election meddling trial.
The answer to Trump's immunity question is a simple 'No,'” MSNBC host Cathy Fang said on her show. The Cathy Fang Show. Pointing to Justice Jackson's analysis, he paraphrased: Because if we just say no so you don't get that immunity, then we don't have to do what I'm going to put your official X and I'm going to put your personal x in this bucket and there will never be two. to meet.”
“It is fatally flawed, and it only leads to delay, bad precedent and bad law,” the lawyer said.
Watch here:
For more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
“That rubik doesn't work. It is fatally flawed, and it only leads to delay, bad precedent and bad law.” @KatiePhang: Regarding Supreme Court hearings on Trump's presidential immunity claims. pic.twitter.com/V9KGS18HkE
— The Katie Phang Show (@katiephangshow) April 26, 2024
“Ketanji Brown Jackson had the best breakdown with Dribben at the end of it all. Which was “why can't we just answer the damn question as it is posed?”
“Because if we just say no so you don't get that immunity, then we don't have to I'm going to put your official X and I'm going to put your personal x in this bucket and never both. will meet”.
“Analysis of this weird one-legged stool by Justice Roberts, blah, blah, blah. That rubric is not working. It is fatally flawed, and it leads only to delay and bad precedent and bad law.”
“That's why if you just answer the question no, you don't get immunity for it. … You don't have to worry about new trials and district court rulings and then more appeals and more delays.”
“And then you get to Amy Coney Barrett's point, you can put it back where it needs to be.”
“And the official part of it should not be excised. No need to excise. You can submit it to the jury with a limiting instruction. That's what happens every day in court, right.”
This Supreme Court doesn't seem to feel obligated to help Americans be fully informed when they go to the polls this November because they've suddenly decided to move as slowly as possible, as Cathy Fang pointed out the answer to the question: laid out very simply and very easily and very quickly.
Indeed, Just Security reminded the public that the Court has in the past been willing and able to move quickly when dealing with matters of public importance. “The Supreme Court has been willing and able to move very quickly in dealing with matters of historic public importance several times in the past.”
One example they offered was how quickly the Court moved to reinstate Donald J. Trump's ballot in Colorado after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible for primary voting on January 6, 2021, due to inciting an insurrection in an attempt to win the 2021 election. stay in power after he lost the safest election in modern history.
The court decided this within just 25 days of oral arguments.
Voters deserve to know about Donald Trump's efforts to subvert the election. They need this information before voting. Stopping that would be court-ordered election interference, and while that may sound like a wild charge, we've seen the FBI weaponize investigations against Democratic presidential candidates twice to help Donald Trump in two different elections. We've seen Republican members of Congress work to keep their constituents from counting their votes in an effort to help Trump steal the election. We have seen norms and protocol ignored when it comes to manipulating the system to help Donald Trump.
Failure to timely decide this case on the issue raised would amount to interference. The problem then becomes that nothing can be done about it because several conservative members of the Court treat it as the divine right of kings instead of the highest court in a democracy.
Their actions are just one more reason to get everyone you know to vote this November. Vote against election deniers and people who do not vigorously defend our freedoms.
Special message from PoliticusUSA
If you are able to make a donation just to help us keep PoliticusUSA's doors open during an important election year, please do so here.Â
We've been honored for 14 years to put your interests first because we only respond to our readers, and we won't compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod on The Daily newsletter podcast here.
Sarah received President Barack Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden in 2016. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton also repeatedly interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and exclusively covered her first House appearance since then-President Donald Trump's first impeachment.
Sarah is a two-time award-winning video producer for Telly and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with Sarah by email, Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host and Twitter:
Leave a Comment