post.tribel.com
BeLoud Share
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced Wednesday it would hear former President Donald Trump's argument claiming absolute broad immunity from federal prosecution, which is being viewed as a gift to Trump in his efforts to delay a trial until after the November election.
According to CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, SCOTUS won't hear oral arguments in the immunity case until April 22. And as Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted, the Court "could tee up his trial for August or September" assuming it doesn't take too long to issue a ruling after the late April hearing. However, he added "the trial is unlikely to come much earlier than that, given [US District Judge] Chutkan's promise to ensure he has another few months of prep."
Following the Court's issuing of a writ of certiorari on Wednesday, numerous legal experts and journalists blasted SCOTUS on social media for what they viewed as a decision in Trump's favor.
READ MORE: 'Not a serious argument': Legal experts tear apart Trump's newest SCOTUS filing
"[SCOTUS] will prematurely hear a completely frivolous claim that if sustained, would allow any POTUS to commit crimes with almost unbridled immunity," tweeted Richard Signorelli, a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. "This will delay his federal 1/6 trial indefinitely. A political and traitorous decision from a totally discredited SCOTUS."
The announcement to take up Trump's immunity case was unexpected, given that a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a scathing ruling earlier this month ripping apart the ex-president's argument that he should enjoy permanent immunity from any and all criminal acts as a former head of state. Vanity Fair special correspondent Molly Jong-Fast made a Beatles reference, tweeting Trump "gets by with a little help from his friends... On the Supreme Court." And when looping in the immunity question with other Trump-related cases SCOTUS is currently weighing, law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called the current SCOTUS term "the most important... since Reconstruction." Others observed that it wasn't out of the question for the 6-3 conservative majority to rule in Trump's favor, thus eliminating his two federal indictments in one fell swoop.
"I don't think it's sunk in with people that Trump is asking the Dobbs Court to rule that he's literally above the law and they apparently might do it," tweeted journalist Matthew Yglesias, defining the Court by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Mississippi-based journalist Ashton Pittman piled on the Court, writing that Wednesday's decision could "help Trump potentially avoid having to go to trial in the January 6th case before the election—or ever, possibly."
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that the likelihood of Trump's election interference trial happening before the November election was slim, and noted that "the only criminal case likely to go to trial before the election is the Manhattan DA case next month, which takes on a heightened significance as a result."BeLoud Share
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announced Wednesday it would hear former President Donald Trump's argument claiming absolute broad immunity from federal prosecution, which is being viewed as a gift to Trump in his efforts to delay a trial until after the November election.
According to CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, SCOTUS won't hear oral arguments in the immunity case until April 22. And as Politico legal correspondent Kyle Cheney tweeted, the Court "could tee up his trial for August or September" assuming it doesn't take too long to issue a ruling after the late April hearing. However, he added "the trial is unlikely to come much earlier than that, given [US District Judge] Chutkan's promise to ensure he has another few months of prep."
Following the Court's issuing of a writ of certiorari on Wednesday, numerous legal experts and journalists blasted SCOTUS on social media for what they viewed as a decision in Trump's favor.
READ MORE: 'Not a serious argument': Legal experts tear apart Trump's newest SCOTUS filing
"[SCOTUS] will prematurely hear a completely frivolous claim that if sustained, would allow any POTUS to commit crimes with almost unbridled immunity," tweeted Richard Signorelli, a former assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York. "This will delay his federal 1/6 trial indefinitely. A political and traitorous decision from a totally discredited SCOTUS."
The announcement to take up Trump's immunity case was unexpected, given that a DC Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a scathing ruling earlier this month ripping apart the ex-president's argument that he should enjoy permanent immunity from any and all criminal acts as a former head of state. Vanity Fair special correspondent Molly Jong-Fast made a Beatles reference, tweeting Trump "gets by with a little help from his friends... On the Supreme Court." And when looping in the immunity question with other Trump-related cases SCOTUS is currently weighing, law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called the current SCOTUS term "the most important... since Reconstruction." Others observed that it wasn't out of the question for the 6-3 conservative majority to rule in Trump's favor, thus eliminating his two federal indictments in one fell swoop.
"I don't think it's sunk in with people that Trump is asking the Dobbs Court to rule that he's literally above the law and they apparently might do it," tweeted journalist Matthew Yglesias, defining the Court by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Mississippi-based journalist Ashton Pittman piled on the Court, writing that Wednesday's decision could "help Trump potentially avoid having to go to trial in the January 6th case before the election—or ever, possibly."
Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti tweeted that the likelihood of Trump's election interference trial happening before the November election was slim, and noted that "the only criminal case likely to go to trial before the election is the Manhattan DA case next month, which takes on a heightened significance as a result."
