Bad news and good news for Donald Trump: America on the brink

First, the bad news:

Okay, that's not exactly bad news, because: Supreme Court.  

This, however...

And now for the good news (for the orange god king; bad news for America's dying democracy)...

I was certain that the Supreme Court would deny the application to stay the DC Circuit Court’s mandate affirming Judge Chutkan’s ruling that presidents aren’t, in fact, kings; a move that would have brought the DC trial back to life.

[...]

If they knew they were going to want to rule on the merits, why didn’t they grant cert in December. Applying the same expedited briefing schedule they did today, oral arguments would have taken place this week. As it stands now, oral arguments are set for April 22nd - almost two months from now. And why did it take over a week to grant cert? That only made sense if they were going to deny the stay and someone was writing a dissent or concurrence.

  Mueller, She Wrote

That was the bet most people I was reading were making.

The best case is that they hear this April 22nd, and take about two to three weeks to issue a ruling (going by the Nixon tapes timeline).

More speculation that has no basis in reality for this court.

Of course, Bush v Gore took FOUR DAYS to decide, but that was to seat a republican, so I don’t have much faith in them working that fast. If they take two or three weeks to decide, and we add the 88 days that existed between the pause of the DC proceedings and the trial date, that puts the trial date sometime in late July/early August. Jack Smith has said the trial is expected to take 3 months, and in this scenario, we would have a verdict before the election.

However, Judge Luttig has posited that because they agreed to hear this case on the merits, that there is at least one justice that disagrees with the DC Circuit’s ruling, and he doesn’t see how the case could be decided by the end of this term - which is around July 1st. Any ruling coming later than May could put the trial past the election.

In another scenario, the Supreme Court could make a ruling that remands further review back to the District Court (Judge Chutkan), and anything she decides could be appealed by trump and we’re all the way back at the beginning.

[...]

[T]he Supreme Court said today that the question they are going to decide is “Whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

[...]

I can envision a scenario where the Justices decide that presidents DO sometimes have immunity over official acts, but remand to Judge Chutkan to determine whether what trump did is an official act, and whether the crimes alleged in the indictment could be subject to presidential immunity. Any ruling she would make would then be subject to the entire appeals process again.

Yes, we are in a doom loop that will suck the life out of us.

But what should we make of the use of the word alleged. Alleged by whom? First, the Supreme Court by law has to take everything in the indictment as fact. Jack Smith has said that these crimes are NOT official acts. So it seems that “alleged” here means that TRUMP is alleging - which, as Lisa Rubin says, gives into trump’s reframing of the question.

[...]

Another thing to consider is that once the ruling is issued - and I’m still sure the Supreme Court will agree that trump isn’t immune - Judge Chutkan could truncate the 88 days needed to prepare for trial.

That's more faith in the court than I have.  They've been meddling in presidential elections (with bad rulings) since Bush v. Gore, and that was before they had three Trump nominees.

I’m very disappointed in the ruling today, but it’s not over until it’s over, and Alvin Bragg’s criminal trial is set to begin March 25th.

You tell me.

I'm wondering what Jack's team is doing right now.

But Vladeck's "best bet" before this ruling was that they probably weren't going to grant cert.

And will not.

There is one possible slant to this decision that might not be good for Trump.

In fact, by taking up the immunity question and keeping the case on hold in the meantime, the justices have all but guaranteed that Trump cannot stand trial on the federal election charges until the waning weeks of campaign season, at the earliest.

If that happens, Trump may have to juggle courtroom appearances with debates and swing state speeches. The trial, which is expected to last several months, could even overlap with Election Day itself.

  Politico

On the other hand, that could be good news for Trump by virtue of him whining loudly and publicly that he's being persecuted in an attempt to keep him from winning, bringing out more rubes to vote for him.

Whether it hurts or helps him to be on trial is anybody's guess. It should hurt. But, this is America.

And in other Supreme Court news...

The problem with that is Congress.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02:34 pm:

UPDATE 03/01/2024: