Kind of the outcome that was expected, but not in the way that was expected.Roberts's majority opinion articulates the Court's view of where the line is, and remands to the district court to decide, in light of that ruling, which of the charges in the indictment can go forward.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
Yeah, this is not good.Sotomayor: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
Nor is this.Historically, #SCOTUS has bent over backwards to avoid splitting right down ideological (or partisan) lines in cases of such national importance.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
Its failure to avoid those optics here is a major institutional failure—whether you're more or less sympathetic to the bottom line.
Aye, there's the rub.There's an important sub-part of the Trump immunity ruling in which #SCOTUS holds that "protected conduct" (that can't be prosecuted) also can't be used as *evidence* to establish other charges.
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
Justice Barrett, otherwise concurring, agrees with the dissenters that that's wrong.
And that’s why.This is a big part of why the ruling is a bigger win for Trump than many of us had been expecting. It’s not just which acts will be immune; it’s how this will hamstring efforts to prosecute even those acts for which there *isn’t* immunity. That’s why Barrett concurs only in part. https://t.co/SwIofaiBqs
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 1, 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment