That's because no past President or administration has been willing to torch the integrity of the legal process in the way that Biden's DOJ has done it. Long-standing norms have been tossed aside and a scorched earth policy employed to "get Trump". The legal system has been abused -- finding partisan judges and jury pools in 90%+ locales to affect political punishment, not justice. The Dems are vindictive, rage-filled people willing to destroy America in order to hold onto power. They won't rest until their opponents' reputation is destroyed, they are penniless, and they are imprisoned. Yet their supporters cheer on this behavior, completely oblivious that it's destroying public confidence in the justice system -- which is a dangerous outcome. There is absolutely no decency whatsoever on the left.
DC Court: “The risks of chilling Presidential action or permitting meritless, harassing prosecutions are unlikely, unsupported by history and ‘too remote and shadowy to shape the course of justice.’ We therefore conclude that functional policy considerations rooted in the structure of our government do not immunize former Presidents from federal criminal prosecution.”
“It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity"
In a surprising position, hugh hewitt thinks the supreme court should shirk their responsibilities, avoid taking up the immunity question until after the election... shocking I know, from the former director of the richard nixon presidential library and museum.
I would be absolutely floored if they don't take the case up. 1) There are at least 4 justices who would want to take it up just to help Trump, regardless of their legal position. Kav, Amy, Thomas and Gorsuch. Alito makes 5. They only need 4. 2) Setting aside all of the politics, you can absolutely make a sound argument that the SC SHOULD be the final authority here. This is a question of presidential immunity. Shouldn't the SC issue a final ruling on this that is binding and precedent going forward?
I'm kind of split. Politically it's a lose/lose for them to take up the case. Roberts is concerned about the waning lack of trust and integrity of the court. People from one side or the other will claim the result is not legally sound and a political sham. The appellate court's decision is very thorough and precise in their ruling. It also mandates a time requirement. This court with these justices have already refused to hear other election case challenges on behalf of Trump. On the other hand, the main reason they might have for agreeing to hear the case is that they feel it is important enough headed down the road that they would want to set a precedent. Setting a precedent of total immunity including assassinating political rivals seems like Trump's appeal is pointless.
