Justice Amy Coney Barrett, (the Supreme Court's sole non Harvard-Yale-Stanford Law graduate), seems to be considering a test for Presidential Immunity based on whether the President's alleged criminal acts are official or private in nature. Interesting. Given that the President of the United States has (by design) ZERO official involvement in the administration of Presidential Elections, everything Trump did to interfere with the process would not be covered by immunity. J. Barrett actually pushed Trump’s lawyer to admit this specifically on the record. There are a couple of things I don't like about this proposed test. The problem is, I don't have a better way to do it. Neither, I suspect do the other Justices. No one, not even Alito or Thomas, is likely to declare absolute immunity for all crimes a President might commit while in office. There might be some attraction for the notion that a President must first be impeached but that means a President could murder his wife on his last day in office. I don't think that will fly. So the handwriting might be, if not yet on the wall, at least foreshadowed.
I think the bottom line is that the SCOTUS arm of the Republican party is simply trying to delay Trump's trials as much as "possible". That being the case, the question is the term possible. It's unclear to me how much they will be willing to "corrupt" the law to make that time be shorter or longer. Longer delay will probably require greater corruption.
This is a foolie, a dodge. They have no intention of actually ruling on this case. There's nothing upon which to rule. Government officials already enjoy immunity for actions taken within the scope of their duties, provided those actions are lawful. And if not, they're subject to prosecution, as they are for crimes committed outside their duties. There is zero need to change any of that, and the presidency isn't any different from any other position. (Check the Constitution on that one.) By remanding it back to the appellate court they'll have them take another bite at the same apple with the same conclusion. Oh, sure, the appellate court might develop some criteria for what is in an not in one's scope of duties, but that's irrelevant since criminal behavior negates that distinction. So why do it? Hate to say it, but this Supreme Court is determined to run interference. Not for the presidency, but for one (former) president: Trump. Their goal is simple: delay the trial until after the election. They can accomplish this without surrendering to any new distinctions around immunity. It is as corrupt as Clarence Thomas' RV, but a lot more impactful. I've maintained for quite some time now that the civil courts can't decide this. Nor can the criminal courts. The 14th Amendment can't. The Supreme Court can't. It's up to the voters to decide what America's future will be. It will be "interesting" to see what distinctions they make.
"The high court was considering Trump's argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, but another issue is whether Jack Smith and the Office of Special Counsel have the authority to bring charges at all. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised a question last Thursday that goes to the heart of Special Counsel Jack Smith's charges against former president Trump. "Did you, in this litigation, challenge the appointment of special counsel?" Thomas asked Trump attorney John Sauer last Thursday during a nearly three-hour session at the Supreme Court. Sauer replied that Trump's attorneys had not raised that concern "directly" in the current Supreme Court case — in which justices are considering Trump's arguments that presidential immunity precludes the prosecution of charges that the former president illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election. Sauer told Justice Clarence Thomas that, "we totally agree with the analysis provided by Attorney General Meese [III] and Attorney General Mukasey." Federal prosecutions, "can be taken only by persons properly appointed as federal officers to properly created federal offices," Meese and Mukasey argued. "But neither Smith nor the position of special counsel under which he purportedly acts meets those criteria."
I don't think so. Maybe, but I don’t think so. The reason they can't let it go is that the Supreme Court isn't the Court of first instance. There are lower court orders that say Trump has no immunity. If the Supreme Court doesn't rule, those orders are in effect. Not to decide is to decide. The problem is that Presidential Immunity isn't like immunity for other public officials. The President CAN order people killed. Well, when and why? Just outside the U.S.? Just when acting "officially?" We don't know.
On another side, we don't have monarchy for a reason. I'm last to provide legal opinion. I can share what I hear or read and what is shared by qualified persons.
