Loyola University law professor Jessica Levinson looks at a twist in the Supreme Court's recent decision not to take up Special Counsel Jack Smith's filing to decide the issue of the Malignant Loser's Presidential immunity claim:
"Recently, the Supreme Court declined Smith’s request to expedite resolving the question of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution in the federal election interference case. On the one hand, we can view the court’s decision as a win for Trump. The court’s unwillingness to jump into the fray and rule on this question before the D.C. Circuit hears and rules on the question could delay the case’s resolution. The longer this case drags on, the better it is for Trump.
But on the other hand, the Supreme Court’s decision to wait for the D.C. Circuit to rule might actually be bad news for Trump. If, as many expect, the D.C. Circuit concludes that Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, then Trump will appeal to the high court. But the court doesn’t have to take the case. By declining to hear the case, the D.C. Circuit court’s decision would stand. The Supreme Court also could simply affirm the D.C. Circuit’s ruling without a full briefing and oral arguments. The court’s decision not to intervene now could actually indicate there’s really no reason for their involvement because this is not a close call." (our emphasis)
With a right-wing Court that's made up of six Republicans, three of whom were appointed by the Malignant Loser, and the extreme right Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, the odds are that the Court may wish to hand the Malignant Loser a devastating win that would effectively kill the Federal case against him for trying to overturn the election and defraud the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts once said the business of the Court was to call "balls and strikes," but were they to grant the Malignant Loser immunity, they'd be giving him a home run without a ball being pitched.
(photo: You've got to fight like hell if you're going to install me as dictator!)
