And why did courts refuse to address 2020 and why will SCOTUS rule against DJT here? Three words:
SCOTUS will not want to be accused...yet again...of handing the Presidency to a particular candidate. And that goes double for handing it to DJT.
I hope to God I'm wrong.
PS: it's obvious even to Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley that any guilty verdict handed down in these cases will be overturned on appeal...but that won't be until next year...or 2026...or 2027.
Bush v Gore was falsely portrayed as “election interference” in Bush’s favor. Actually, the decision (7-2) affirmed the equal protection clause and, by a 5-4 vote, remanded the case back to the Florida Supremes (who were the real election meddlers).
A decision by the current SCOTUS to affirm presidential immunity would be a step in restoring judicial impartiality — taking the judicial system out of deciding election results. The toxic weaponization of the judicial system we’re witnessing today is precisely why the Founding Fathers wrote, in black letter, those safeguards in our Constitution.
“SCOTUS will not want to be accused...yet again...of handing the Presidency to a particular candidate.”
I might tend to agree, but think that SCOTUS might well vote for immunity and do the legally correct thing here.
Why?
Biden has repeatedly ignored SCOTUS rulings, Student Loan Forgiveness: forgiving student loans when he has no congressional authorization to do so.
Repeated threats to pack SCOTUS.
Allowing the homes, families and the justices themselves to be swarmed by mobs after the Dobbs ruling in violation of law.
Shaming justices during the SOTU address.
Biden has shown nothing but contempt for the judicial branch. While voting to affirm presidential immunity is the legally correct position, it is also a massive double barreled middle finger to the eyes of Biden from SCOTUS.