When it comes to the Supreme Court’s questions regarding Donald J. Trump v. United States, they were supposed to answer the basic question of if Donald Trump had presidential immunity as he claims he does in the election interference trial in D.C.
The answer to the Trump immunity question is a simple ‘No,’ MSNBC’s Katie Phang said on her show The Katie Phang Show. Pointing to Justice Jackson’s analysis, she paraphrased, “Which was ‘why can’t we just answer the damn question that way it’s been posed.’ Because if we just say no, that you don’t get that immunity, then we don’t have to do the I’m gonna put your official X and I’m gonna put your private x in this bucket and never the twain shall meet.”
“It is fatally flawed and it only leads to delay and bad precedent and bad law,” the legal expert said.
Watch here:
To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.
”That rubric doesn’t work. It is fatally flawed and it only leads to delay and bad precedent, and bad law.” Watch analysis from @KatiePhang on the Supreme Court hearing on Trump’s presidential immunity claims. pic.twitter.com/V9KGS18HkE
— The Katie Phang Show (@katiephangshow) April 26, 2024
“Ketanji Brown Jackson had the best analysis with Dreeben at the end of all of this. Which was ‘why can’t we just answer the damn question that way it’s been posed.’”
“Because if we just say no, that you don’t get that immunity, then we don’t have to do the I’m gonna put your official X and I’m gonna put your private x in this bucket and never the twain shall meet.”
“This bizarre one legged stool Justice Roberts analysis, blah, blah, blah. That rubric doesn’t work. It is fatally flawed and it only leads to delay and bad precedent and bad law.”
“Which is why, if you just answer the question, no, you don’t get immunity for that… You don’t have to worry about new trials and district court rulings and then more appeals and more delay.”
“And then you get to Amy Coney Barrett’s point, you can get it back to where it needs to be.”
“And you don’t have to excise out the official part of it. You don’t have to excise out. You can present it to the jury with a limiting instruction. That’s what happens every single day in a court of law right?”
This Supreme Court doesn’t seem to feel compelled to help Americans be fully informed when they go to vote in November of this year, as they have suddenly decided to move as slowly as possible when at Katie Phang pointed out, the answer to the question posed is very simple and very easy and very quick.
Indeed, Just Security reminded the public that the Court has been willing and able to move quickly in the past when dealing with maters of public importance. “The Supreme Court on several occasions in the past has been willing and able to move very quickly when dealing with questions of historic public importance.”
One of the examples they offered was how quickly the Court moved to restore Donald J. Trump the ballot in Colorado after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump was NOT eligible for the primary ballot due to inciting an insurrection on January 6th, 2021 in an effort to stay in power after he lost the most secure election in modern history.
The Court decided that in just 25 days after oral arguments.
Voters deserve to have information about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn an election. They need this information before they vote. To withhold it would be election interference by the Court, and while that might sound like a wild accusation, we have seen the FBI weaponize investigations against Democratic presidential candidates twice now to help Donald Trump in two different elections. We have seen Republican members of Congress work to keep their own constituents votes from being counted in an effort to help Trump steal an election. We have seen norms and protocol ignored when it comes to manipulating the system to help Donald Trump.
To not decide this case on the question raised in a timely manner would be election interference. The issue then becomes that nothing could be done about it, because several of the conservative members of the Court treat it like a divine right of Kings instead of the high court in a democracy.
Their actions are just another reason to get everyone you know to vote this November. Vote against election deniers and people who aren’t vigorously upholding our freedoms.
A Special Message From PoliticusUSA
If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep the doors open on PoliticusUSA during what is a critical election year, please do so here.Â
We have been honored to be able to put your interests first for 14 years as we only answer to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core PoliticusUSA value.
Listen to Sarah on the PoliticusUSA Pod on The Daily newsletter podcast here.
Sarah has been credentialed to cover President Barack Obama, then VP Joe Biden, 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and exclusively interviewed Speaker Nancy Pelosi multiple times and exclusively covered her first home appearance after the first impeachment of then President Donald Trump.
Sarah is two-time Telly award winning video producer and a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.
Connect with Sarah on Post, Mastodon @PoliticusSarah@Journa.Host, & Twitter.