48 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Tim Ward's avatar

Some of the justices commented on the relative lack of importance of the current cases against Trump in the grand scheme of things, emphasizing instead the risk that future justice departments could go rogue and pester future ex-Presidents. Why not deal with that unprecedented scenario if it comes to pass, rather than assume it will and, in the meantime, allow a deeply dangerous treachery that actually occurred go unpunished.

Expand full comment
Bruce Lawrence's avatar

The appeals court wrote a very strong opinion. I suspect SCOTUS was provoked by that opinion and feels compelled to deal with it now, before it can become more influential.

Expand full comment
Tim Ward's avatar

Sounds about right. C. Justice Roberts made a comment or two suggesting his dismay with the Ct of Appeals opinion. I'm guessing at a remand that will lead to a mid-2025 trial date, if and only if . . . .

Expand full comment
Fake American's avatar

"Why not deal with that unprecedented scenario if it comes to pass, rather than assume it will"

Motivated reasoning won't allow it.

Expand full comment
Dave Yell's avatar

As I heard on CNN From Shan Woo";Isn't that what trials are for"?

Expand full comment