The ruling is significant not only for its stark repudiation of Trump’s novel immunity claims but also because it breathes life back into a landmark prosecution that had been effectively frozen for weeks as the court considered the appeal.
Yet the one-month gap between when the court heard arguments and issued its ruling has already created uncertainty about the timing of a trial in a calendar-jammed election year, with the judge overseeing the case last week canceling the initial March 4 date.
Trump’s team vowed to appeal, which could postpones the case by weeks or months — particularly if the Supreme Court agrees to take it up. The judges gave Trump a week to ask the Supreme Court to get involved.
After the abortion case, the Supreme Court has been cowardly refusing to hear cases where they know the conservative base wants it but nobody else does. They wash their hands and let the lower court’s ruling stand.
Thomas will probably vote in favor to hear the case, because he’s an sycophantic idiot, but there probably won’t be enough others for them to accept the case.
They decided 5-4 on the settled law that the Federal government has authority over the border. The 5 were on the correct side, but it should have bee 9-0. I wouldn’t put money on them being chastened by public backlash.
I suspect it’s not uncommon to have token dissent so they can pander to their donors and their base but still give the ruling that is the most politically expedient. Much like how a party will let a few members vote against a bill but the bill itself easily has the numbers to pass.
Of course, it’s disgusting that supreme court justices have a political alignment at all, but it is what it is.
deleted by creator
Letting the lower court’s ruling stand says, “We agree. The appeal is meritless.” And the fight is officially OVER. That not good enough for you? Should they have heard these cases?
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-transgender-bathrooms-indiana-35c59c4dbe94668592c96e2a27c8d517
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/u-s-supreme-court-wont-take-up-wa-capital-gains-tax-challenge/
Not sure who you’re yelling at. We seem to agree.
I meant that bit. I don’t find that cowardly, seems perfectly normal jurisprudence. No?