BTW, decisions at 10. They may try to hide some of their more odious ones that will be unpopular but need to pay off a constituency or a donor for a Friday, thinking it will have a lessened new cycle
Good article in the Times discussing how obviously political the court’s dragging of feet in the Trump immunity case has become. Compares the timeline to Colorado case of Trump on the ballot (60 days to decision) and the Nixon tape cases (54 days to decision) vs the immunity case (110 days no decision). Opinion | Something’s Rotten About the Justices Taking So Long on Trump’s Immunity Case On Feb. 28, the justices agreed to hear Mr. Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for the end of April. That eight-week interval is much quicker than the ordinary Supreme Court briefing process, which usually extends for at least 10 weeks. But it’s considerably more drawn out than the schedule the court established earlier this year on a challenge from Colorado after that state took Mr. Trump off its presidential primary ballot. The court agreed to hear arguments on the case a mere month after accepting it and issued its decision less than a month after the argument. Mr. Trump prevailed, 9-0. Nearly two months have passed since the justices heard lawyers for the former president and for the special counsel’s office argue the immunity case. The court is dominated by conservatives nominated by Republican presidents. Every passing day further delays a potential trial on charges related to Mr. Trump’s efforts to remain in office after losing the 2020 election and his role in the events that led to the storming of the Capitol; indeed, at this point, even if the court rules that Mr. Trump has limited or no immunity, it is unlikely a verdict will be delivered before the election. In 1974, the Watergate special prosecutor squared off against President Richard Nixon over his refusal to release Oval Office tape recordings of his conversations with aides. Nixon argued that he was immune from a subpoena seeking the recordings. Last year, Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin, looked at how long that case took once it reached the Supreme Court on May 31 of that year. The justices gave the parties 21 days to file their briefs, and then 10 days to respond. Oral argument was held on July 8. Sixteen days later, on July 24, the court issued its 8-0 decision ordering Nixon to turn over the tapes. The chief justice, Warren Burger, who had been nominated to the court by Nixon, wrote the opinion. Total elapsed time: 54 days. Nixon subsequently resigned. As of Tuesday, 110 days had passed since the court agreed to hear the Trump immunity case. And still no decision.
^ They are brazen in their support for criminality and a criminal. It's as if it were their jobs to subvert justice. All of them. Everyone choosing to still associate with that former political party, now criminal organization.
Mark Joseph Stern is not the first to observe that this immigration decision seems to set that ground work. And the movement certainly seems obsessed with gay rights. They just cannot accept them.
Sadly, i cannot disagree with Sotomayor. I would be surprised if this issue wasn’t at least argued in the SC. Self-determination is up for debate.
SCOTUS's ruling today in Snyder vs. US basically legalized bribery. As long as you do it after the ruling as a form of gratuity, it's fine and dandy. The majority is doing their best here to protect Thomas and others from bribery charges. The US supreme court just basically legalized bribery | Moira Donegan In another ruling meant to help their rich benefactors, SCOTUS ruled that some SEC cases have to be tried in courts and not via SEC tribunals. Then you just give the judge in your case a 'wink, wink' gratuity after the fact and you walk scot free!
past time. Now it is obvious why CT doesn't believe in the Special Counsel process. One is about to go sniffing around his RV "We do not make this request lightly": Senators demand criminal investigation into Clarence Thomas (msn.com) U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are requesting a criminal investigation into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for potentially violating federal ethics and tax laws. In a letter written to Attorney General Merrick Garland last week, Whitehouse and Wyden requested the appointment of a Special Counsel to determine whether Thomas violated several laws in his failure to disclose a forgiven loan and gifts he received from benefactors. ............................... “We do not make this request lightly. The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws and raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations,” the Senators wrote in the letter. The senators also requested that the Department of Justice name a special counsel to investigate the undisclosed gifts Thomas received from “billionaire benefactors,” including private jet travel, a country club membership, home renovations and tuition for his son. According to an investigation by ProPublica, Thomas has been treated to vacations by billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow for over 20 years.
