Elie Mystal covered the ridiculous, “Presidential Immunity” (aka, “Why Can’t Trump Be Treated Like A Dictator?”) case before SCOTUS
Dreeben: "BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T CRIMES!" (he didn't yell, I did, but he said "because there weren't crimes." )
Oh God, now Roberts wondering if they should send it back to the DC circuit because he's worried about presidents getting prosecuted in bad faith.
Roberts: "The court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what facts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about... they did not look at what courts usually look at when... taking away immunity."
Is this motherfucker serious? His argument is "Every president coups, why is mine getting charged?"
Thomas: Are you saying there's no immunity even for official acts?
And... that could be the ballgame
Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are more worried about a prosecutor going after a president for *political* reasons than A PRESIDENT TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.
This is just about over.
And by "this" I mean the rule of law and by "over" I mean delayed indefinitely to help Trump.
Gorsuch suggesting that under the government's standard a president could be prosecuted for leading a "civil rights protest" in front of Congress and sought to "influence an official proceeding."
Yes, because Jan 6 and a fucking sit in are the same thing, Neil.
This is goddamn disgusting.
I'm going to keep listening because it is my literal job, but this is pretty much in the bag for Trump at this point. Remand to DC Circuit for decision on "official acts" and whether organizing a coup is one.
After November, if Trump loses, SCOTUS will return to the issue.
Alito: Are you really saying the president is subject to criminal laws like everybody else?
YES YOU DICK. THE PRESIDENT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE LAWS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE!
Alito: "I'm not talking about the particular facts of this case."
WHY? WHY THE HELL ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS FUCKING CASE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU?
The question I'd have for the SCOTUS now is: If you do this, why would a Republican president every peacefully transfer power again?
Democratic presidents will because Democrats follow rules that don't apply to the other side. But why would Republicans just leave *ever again*?
Alito: Couldn't FDR's decision to inter Japanese Americans during WWII be charged [as a crime]?
He says that LIKE THAT'S A BAD THING?
And Dreeben is trying to say that he couldn't.
This country, and specifically this court, is a fucking joke.
Now onto self-pardons. Alito is just playing all the Fox News hits now.
I'm going to smoke. Biden should send Seal Team 6 to Mar-a-Lago because according to Alito there's no downside.
Alito just suggested that the last election was "questionably decided"
I have left my body and am texting things I can't say aloud to my friends.
Kagan is like the first person to be asking about the actual criminal acts Trump is charged with.
I assume Alito is not listening because Kagan is a woman while Gorsuch is probably sitting there emailing the New York Times because they got something wrong on the Spelling Bee.
I see the internet is unimpressed with Dreeben but that's being a little unfair. The Republican justices want to do this, there's nothing that Dreeben could say to stop them.
What he *could* be doing was making their hypocrisy more clear for the non-legal media following along.
But... SCOTUS advocates have to preserve their ability to argue another day, and blowing up the justices in one case
A: Doesn't help them actually win the case.
B: Actively hurts them in the next one.
Kavanaugh: "Like Justice Gorsuch, I'm not concerned with the here and now of this case, I'm concerned about the future."
I don't know why this is acceptable. I do know that the justices are sure they are right about ignoring the facts of THIS ACTUAL CASE.
Kavanaugh... who WORKED FOR KEN STARR... is basically saying that Jack Smith is politically motivated and his appoint in unconstitutional.
It's... maddening. And most of the media reports will not even point out this hypocrisy.
The "independent counsel" law was rewritten into our current "special counsel" law BECAUSE of the shit Kavanaugh helped Starr do! Everybody was like "that crap can't happen again."
Somebody get @neal_katyal and @MonicaLewinsky on the phone to blow up this asshole.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky Every time I try to no have a stroke listening to this bullshit, they say something even more risible and stupid.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky Kavanaugh: "President Ford's pardon. Hugely unpopular when he did it... now probably looked on as one of his better decisions."
What? WHAT? WHO THE FUCK THINKS FORD'S PARDON OF NIXON WAS A GOOD IDEA? WHEN DID I DIE AND GO TO HELL????
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky This could be a men v. women 5-4 ruling.
Men: Let's kick this back to DC to further delay Trump's trial.
Soto, Kagan, Jackson: Why? That's fucking dumb.
Barrett: Ladies, I agree with you, but we shouldn't call the men fucking dumb. We should politely disagree.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky We're past the two and half hour mark for an argument where the Republican justices made their decision when they were appointed, some of them decades ago.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky KBJ is closing by trying to answer all of Gorsuch's questions, which would be effective if Gorsuch operated in good faith. But... he doesn't. So...
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky I had hoped that *one* of the liberal justices would have made the point from the Common Cause brief, highlighting that the whole point of what Republican justices are doing is to give Trump delay.
Not a persuasive argument for the justices, but good for the media to hear.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky The case is submitted. Court doesn't come back till May 9th which will be a decision day.
But I think they won't decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.
@neal_katyal @MonicaLewinsky I wish I had better news for you. Thanks anyway for following along with our national descent into madness.
27 notes
·
View notes