The Supreme Court: Clarence & Ginni Thomas Jet Set Edition

Fifth Circuit running wild and SCOTUS declines to stop them:

Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out in a brief opinion accompanying the Court’s decision not to hear Mckesson, the Court recently reaffirmed the strong First Amendment protections enjoyed by people like Mckesson in Counterman v. Colorado (2023). That decision held that the First Amendment “precludes punishment” for inciting violent action “unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”

There’s nothing novel about this case that would justify treating it differently than existing precedent, the Fifth Circuit just hates protesters and didn’t want to apply that precedent. And thanks to SCOTUS, they don’t have to!

Even the Trump campaign is surprised how much water SCOTUS is carrying for them.

Trump’s lawyers and other confidants had widely expected — and had told the former president as much — that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party’s nominating convention, the sources add.

If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan.

“We planned for that exhausting schedule and split screen,” says a person involved with the planning.

But the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, which Trump built as president, came through for him in a way that many Trump advisers didn’t believe was probable. When news broke in late February that the court would take up Trump’s claims of vast immunity, Trumpland was so elated that a lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stone they were “literally popping champagne.”

Meanwhile…

One stunned judge asked Trump’s lawyers, “Could a president who ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival, and is not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”

The response from Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, was chilling: “If he were impeached and convicted first … my answer is qualified yes, there is a political process that would have to occur first,” he said. In other words, under Trump’s vision of immunity, he could not be prosecuted for ordering an assassination — he would first have to be impeached and convicted.

At the Supreme Court, Sauer has argued the justices should not concern themselves with “lurid hypotheticals” that “almost certainly never will occur, and would virtually certainly result in impeachment and Senate conviction … if they did occur.”

LOL at thinking the GOP would impeach and convict him for having a liberal politician assassinated.

1 Like

Just listened to oral arguments during a 2 hour drive and my god, I think special counsel has the three liberals, freaking Barrett, and that’s it. The rest are going to at a minimum send it back to the circuit court under a ridiculously expansive god-king theory of presidential immunity for all official acts.

Alito is GONE

What idiotic shit. If Trump wins Biden could assassinate him without penalty.

Democrats would join with republicans to impeach tho.

He couldn’t though, because the Supreme Court is nakedly political, and Biden would absolutely be tried for that.

He’d get impeached and convicted and then be eligible for criminal prosecution and end up being waterboarded at Gitmo or something. What you meant was if Trump wins, he could assassinate Biden without penalty. And that’s probably correct.

1 Like

But would he be tried for assassinating members of the supreme court?

Depends which ones ldo

1 Like

https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1783521814758433212

So now we get years long litigation over what’s an official act, I assume?

The Supreme Court will know it when they see it.

1 Like

Hi-yo

lol in this scenario he’s poppin alito and thomas first

Yeah through most of human history the reason the SC wouldn’t back Trump’s play here is that they would get a black bag over the head immediately.

man I’m listening to the comments from SCOTUS justices today and a lot of them boil down to “gee whiz if we actually looked at these guys there might be a lot of criminals that have been in the white house” and instead of “We should probably do things to make people not want to do crimes” they are more inclined to “Well if we admitted these guys are criminals it might be a little embarassing”

Nah man it’s just Republicans being Republicans.

3 Likes

I’d rather Kav and Gors. That way Sam and Clarence can live out the rest of their years writing bitter dissents covered in MAGA tears.