Trump is claiming broad immunity for actions he took in office, including efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results for which he faces prosecution.

FTA:

“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the question, which looms large in Trump’s prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference.”

  • 2piradians@lemmy.worldEnglish
    291·
    1 year ago

    None of the Justices dissented on this decision. Does that suggest they all agree that Trump should exhaust the appeals before they make the final ruling?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      212·
      1 year ago

      I’m of two lines of thought…

      1. It could mean they’re in the tank for Trump and are intent on delay, delay, delay.

      2. It could mean that they feel a process this important shouldn’t skip steps and they want to see what the appeals court has to say.

      I keep flipping back and forth. :( I wish they had commented.

      • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
        82·
        1 year ago

        I think there is historically low trust in the Supreme Court and the entire institution’s power is based on trust (as opposed to the executives’s that’s based on an enormous military) and anything that vaguely looks like taking a side on this could too the balance.

        Roberts has seemed extremely aware of this issue for a long time on more political cases.

    • barkingspiders@infosec.pubEnglish
      164·
      1 year ago

      That’s kind of my take. Too many people want to paint SCOTUS as a single (and usually corrupt) entity but there’s a much wider diversity of opinions expressed across SCOTUS which often gets left out when we talk about their rulings. A complete lack of dissent from all justices signals that there is indeed some rationale here beyond partisan politics. Given the importance of the matter and the many many consequences of any given ruling on it, it makes sense to me that they would hold off and let the appellate courts chew on it for a while. By holding off they are allowing a wider array of judge’s opinions to be heard which can only enrich the arguments they’ll hear when and if they do ultimately take the case.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
        10·
        1 year ago

        The workers in this case, who drive concrete mixers, went out on strike. Drivers allowed Glacier to load their trucks with concrete. At the appointed hour for the strike, several drivers drove their trucks back to Glacier’s headquarters and walked off the job. The company was unable to deliver the concrete and some of it hardened, requiring the company to scramble to find a way to safely dump the concrete, destroy it, and cart it away.

        Glacier sued the union in state court for “tortious destruction” of its property – the spoiled concrete. The Washington Supreme Court dismissed the case…

        The National Labor Relations Board – the federal agency responsible for enforcing labor law — has long held that unions that fail to take “reasonable precautions” may not be protected by the NLRA when strikes lead to damage to perishable goods or property. The court’s decision on Thursday relied on Glacier’s allegations that the Teamsters purposely timed the strike to ensure that the concrete would harden by choosing to strike only after Glacier had “batched” the wet concrete into the trucks.

        Fascinating but I don’t see how that applies here.