There was plenty of outrage when the six Federalist Society GROOMED Justices of the Supreme Court crafted a ruling that granted Trump sweeping Immunity from prosecution for crimes. Any of those ‘Justices’ who claims it was about protecting Presidents and not specifically to shield Trump from prosecution in DC and Florida is a g-damned LIAR. There was no basis in the Constitution or law for them to give Trump the best gift he’s ever gotten so they crafted a ruling out of the stinky air rising from a fresh pile of bullsh!t. The question is, can they take it back? In short, the answer is yes and Trump himself might provide the case that allows it.
I’ve long said that even if the same Justices are still on the bench when Trump leaves office, and especially if he’s replaced by a Democrat the Roberts Court will severely curtail if not revoke Trump’s (again, not any other President – just TRUMP) as fast as they can. With Senator Sheldon Whitehouse chairing the Judiciary Committee this country will likely get a long overdue education on how the Federalist Society keeps multiple cases active on multiple issues in different circuits to send to the Court. Rest assured should a Democrat regain the Presidency they will be asking the Court to ‘grant Cert’ (agree to hear a case) that will allow SCOTUS to take away the Immunity they’ve given to Trump. That’s a long topic I won’t bore you with. At least not here.
What I do however want to talk about is that it is actually possible for SCOTUS to overturn their own ruling. Like good little Republicans they religiously take their ‘Feel no shame’ pills/shots. Roberts surely knows the legacy he dreamed of will never be and he’d rather publicly admit paying for his daughter to have an abortion than allow a Democrat to have the kind of power he handed to Trump. In theory at least he might not have to wait until Trump is out of Office to have to deal with the matter as we learn from Alternet: In response to a question posed to his MS Now Ask Jordan column legal analyst Jordin Rubin tackled the question of if SCOTUS reverses it’s ruling can Trump be prosecuted for crimes he commits in his second term:
MS NOW legal analyst Jordan Rubin, a former prosecutor, responded, “The Supreme Court can overturn any ruling it wants to.” That includes, he wrote, the 2024 presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States.
Rubin noted that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who led the court’s three Democratic appointees in dissent in that case, recently said that she hopes the ruling will be overturned in her lifetime. The Obama appointee is the third-oldest justice on the court, at 72, behind GOP appointees Clarence Thomas (78) and Samuel Alito (76).
If a Democrat wins the presidency in 2028 and appoints replacements for Thomas and Alito, that would shift the court’s makeup from a 6-3 majority of GOP-appointed justices to a 5-4 majority of Democratic appointees.
Rubin goes on to explain the Justices would have to take up a new case. He also says it’s unclear how a case/issue might find its way up to SCOTUS should what’s currently a hypothetical Democratic (President) appointed majority. I’ve already addressed that. I’m not a lawyer by training so if any reading this want to correct me please do so. There ARE cases out there being nursed along by the Federalist Society. Appellate courts are sometimes notorious for allowing cases to languish. For example how many years is it now that the 11th Circuit has held back issuing another slap-down of District Court judge Aileen Cannon? I truly believe the Federalist Society will have several cases that will suddenly have rulings that will be sent up to SCOTUS that Roberts et al can use to revoke the sweeping immunity they gave to Trump.
Alternet makes note of what could become a delicious irony. Trump is trying to get his hush money conviction pushed up to SCOTUS! Who knows? He might do something so batshit insane that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett (or at least two of them) will side with Democratic appointees Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson to allow prosecution of Trump after all! The sooner the better I say. Still, I’d love to see a ruling revoking immunity and filled with use of Trump legal jeopardy as examples written by Justice Jackson telling him ‘lawyer up a$$hole but you’re toast no matter who you hire.’
It’s a short read but interesting. Given how we see Trump’s health literallay deterioriating before our eyes I rather doubt he’ll live long enough to have to appear in court, much less for a criminal trial to take place and conclude. I grudgingly accept that I’ll have to settle for him taking his last breath knowing all the stuff Jack Smith gathered on him will have made it into the public domain. And people will know his fat orange butt would indeed have been convicted on a whole bunch of additional criminal charges.
But don’t doubt for a second that Rubin’s cautiousness about the prospect of Presidential Immunity being revoked is misplaced. Once a Democrat is sworn in again The Federalist Society will have their proxies asking SCOTUS to grant Cert on multiple cases to enable stripping the immunity Trump enjoys and abuses from future Presidents.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula
