The high court said in a statement on its website that it “may release opinions beginning at 10 a.m.” Monday, but won’t take the bench.
The court typically issues its rulings from the bench, and the unusual note could reflect the expedited timeline on which it heard Trump’s immunity case and the decision’s extremely sensitive timetable.
This is about the ballot access case, not the immunity case.
Correct
So then it’s an absolute garbage title that doesn’t deserve to be linked here?
The two are related though - if you insist on criminal prosecution to leverage 14A Section 3 (which seems likely, that’s literally the only case it’s ever been used other than public officials of the Confedereacy), then he necessarily can’t simply be immune to prosecution forever or there is no method to apply 14A to a former president.
I highly doubt SCOTUS will throw the Super Tuesday primary into chaos with less than 24 hours to go.
Coney-Barrett, Alito, Thomas, Cavanaugh: Hold our beers.
Cavanaugh: Actually I want mine back. I LIKE BEER!
Squee and Donkey Dick Doug need beers too bro. Hey who wants to go rape some chicks?
Oh please, rape wasn’t on the exhaustive schedule for that week, it couldn’t have possibly happened
begins tearing up thinking about ol Paw and his calendars
Boof the Vote!
I mean, during the hearing every justice but Sotomayor expressed skepticism on the ruling from the lower court. The likelihood that Trump is banned from the ballot is so small, you could run a lottery off it.
At a minimum, the ballot access decision should be announced. I’d love it if they threw in the immunity case, but I doubt it.
My expectation is that they’ll say “No, barring conviction, he can’t be removed from the ballot, but in order for that to work, he does NOT have immunity from prosecution.”
My expectation is that they’ll say “No, barring conviction, he can’t be removed from the ballot, but im order for that to work, he does NOT have immunity from prosecution.”
That would be the result most in line with legal precedent. 14A section 3 has to date only been applied to two classes of people other than Trump - public officials of the Confederacy and people convicted of a relevant crime (1919 under the Espionage Act was the last case prior to Jan 6). It has been applied to someone convicted of charges related to Jan 6.
There’s no justifiable reason why Trump would have immunity from legal prosecution once he no longer holds the office of President. Once no longer in office, he is a private citizen like anyone else.
I would be deeply surprised if they ruled any other way on either issue.
