Phil Lewis: WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Smith asks the Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether ex-President Trump is immune from prosecution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Smith asks the Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether ex-President Trump is immune from prosecution.

The fact that he has to ask shows that we really aren't prepared for what's to come.

Republicans are kings says Supreme Court in 6-3 vote

Actually I think this is a good strategy…forcing the Supreme Court to say if any one person is above the law or not….

If they agree that Presidents are immune for life, can't Biden just shoot him?

Technicly he can shoot everyone in the Senate and nobody could arrest him for it if this goes through. (I also strongly advice he do so if it does)

This is sort of a good point. If the court rules Trump is immune because he was a president, they're going to be giving Carte Blanche to Biden.

And every future president going forward…..if there is any democracy left that is

No, no, no, not Biden. Biden is a Democrat and woke something something communist.

I think you'll find that's not the case when you reference the settled case law in Gore v. Because Shut Up That's Why

I hate to admit it but this made me LOL.

I mean, he wouldn't, but Barry still owes us some hope.

"The originalist case for totalitarian rule"

Yes, everyone knows the founders wanted to be ruled by an unaccountable king!

why does he need to ask? Don't we already know the answer?

There's actually no settled law because it's never come up before.

I assume there's also no settled law on whether butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers are immune from federal prosecution, because no one has ever been stupid enough to assert such a thing. Either an ex-president is a citizen of the United States, subject to its laws, or he isn't.

kinda what i was getting at. that he broke a myriad of laws is not up for debate or needs the Supreme Court

That he broke laws isn't what's going to be before Scotus. It's the jurisdiction of prosecution.

I don't think any of those other groups represent the authority of the entire country at any point, so that's apples/oranges. There is no explicit constitutional exception to allow criminal behavior by presidents without prosecution and this would codify that. Stupid? Yes. Democracy? Also yes.

how is that democracy

Allowing prosecutors to go after elected officials without restriction is also known as a banana republic last I checked. You really really don't want this to be a thing. This makes case law defining when and how a president can be criminally prosecuted.

Partly that. There is settled law that states that the President is mostly immune from civil lawsuits resulting from them performing their duties. Trump argues that he was acting as President to protect an election, the government argues he was acting as a candidate trying to further his campaign.

Taking it to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later prevents Trump from raising that defense and using it to delay the trial.

ah. thanks

I'm immune from federal prosecution because it's never come up before.

Oh? When were you president?

I've never been prosecuted federally before (or anywhere) so I may be immune. There's zero case law on it.

the fact that this is even something that is up for debate is utterly ridiculous

Any "Justice" that votes for permanent immunity is an enemy of American democracy and should be impeached. The Rule of Law must apply to all.

Can't wait for Crow's pet lapdog to dissent based on historical revisionism and Scalito to dissent based on dank memes

What does Justice Boofmeister think?

He was black out drunk and slept through the hearing

Again? How long we gotta suffer through this asshat existing on the highest court? Say what? For LIFE?!!? You gotta be fkn kidding me!!

Yep we need scotus term limits for sure!!

Understandable in this particular case.

I just hope it's not the US Supreme Court, that would suck

It is. I would imagine he figured, we will have to roll these dice sometime, it might as well be now. apnews.com/article/supr...

Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecutedapnews.com A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but the Republican ex-president signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.

"Three of the Supreme Court’s nine justices were appointed by Trump" They'll all be recusing themselves if this goes to trial right? RIGHT??

The logical extension of this argument is that someone could commit a murder and then before it’s discovered run for President, get elected and resign the first day, and once the murder is discovered be allowed to walk free forever.

Yikes

Just like kings! Democracy is so great

He's protecting his trial date

So can they rule similarly to Bush v. Gore where it’s a singular decision for this case but not applicable beyond it? That seems like it would be very bad.

Lol, lmao even.

Why WOULD he be?

Post