Did Trump Fare Well in Today's SCOTUS Arguments?

The Supreme Court justices no doubt care about the future prospect of either 1) lawless presidents or 2) a cycle of meritless prosecution of presidents once they leave office. (And believe me, when Joe Biden leaves office I hope Republicans can find a way to bring multiple criminal prosecutions against him.) But Jack Smith cares only about getting a conviction between now and November, however flimsy his theory may be. That appears doubtful; this is the Times’s summation:

Advertisement

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Thursday to rule that former presidents have substantial immunity from criminal prosecution, a move that would further delay the criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump on charges that he plotted to subvert the 2020 election.

Such a ruling would most likely send the case back to the trial court to draw distinctions between official and private conduct. Those proceedings could make it hard to conduct the trial before the 2024 election.

Which would defeat the whole point of Smith’s prosecution.

Ed Morrissey

Adam and I discussed this for Monday's episode of the Amiable Skeptics. He listened to all of the arguments; I did not, but followed along on Twitter for some analysis for both sides. Adam and I think the court will split the baby and rule that presidents have immunity for official acts but not for personal acts -- and that will snarl all of the trials (except Bragg's) for months, if not years. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement