Why doesn’t the Supreme Court simply answer the basic question about Trump’s immunity?

When it comes to the Supreme Court’s questions regarding Donald J. Trump v. United States, they had to answer the fundamental question of whether Donald Trump had presidential immunity, as he claims he does in the DC election interference trial.

The answer to Trump’s immunity question is a simple “No,” MSNBC’s Katie Phang said on her show The Katie Phang Show. Referring to Judge Jackson’s analysis, she paraphrased, “And that was, ‘Why can’t we just answer the damn question the way it was asked.’ Because if we just say no, that you don’t get that immunity, then we don’t have to do the next thing. I’m going to put your official X and I’m going to put your private X in this bucket and those two will never do that. Meet.”

“It is fatally flawed and will only lead to delays, bad precedent and bad legislation,” the legal expert said.

Look here:

To receive more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

”That section doesn’t work. It is fatally flawed and will only lead to delays, bad precedent and bad legislation.” View the analysis of @KatiePhang about 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 it all. That was, ‘Why can’t we just answer the damn question the way it was asked.’

‘Because if we just say no, that you don’t get that immunity, then we don’t have to do the next thing. I’m going to put your official X and I’m going to put your private X in this bucket and never those two. will meet.”

“This bizarre one-legged stool, Judge Roberts analysis, blah, blah, blah. That section doesn’t work. It is fatally flawed and will only lead to delays, bad precedent and bad legislation.”

“That’s why, if you just answer the question, no, you don’t get immunity from that… You don’t have to worry about new trials and district court rulings and then more appeals and more delays.”

“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 leave out the official part of it. You don’t have to pay excise taxes. You can submit it to the jury with a restrictive instruction. Doesn’t that happen every day in a court of law?”

This Supreme Court does not seem to feel compelled to help Americans be fully informed when they vote in November of this year, having suddenly decided to move as slowly as possible when Katie Phang noted that the answer to the question asked is very simple and very easy and very fast.

Indeed, Just security reminded the public that in the past the Court has been willing and able to act quickly when dealing with matters of public interest. “The Supreme Court has on several occasions in the past been willing and able to act very quickly in addressing issues of historic public interest.”

One of the examples they gave was how quickly the Court moved to reinstate the ballot measure for Donald J. Trump in Colorado after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was NOT eligible for the primary ballot due to incitement of insurrection on 6 January 2021 in a bid to cling to power after losing the most secure election in modern history.

The Court decided this in just 25 days after oral arguments.

Voters deserve information about Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn an election. They need this information before they vote. Withholding that would be it election interference by the Court, and while that may sound like a wild accusation, we’ve seen the FBI weaponize investigations against Democratic presidential candidates twice now to help Donald Trump in two different elections. We’ve seen Republican members of Congress work to prevent their own voters’ votes from being counted in an effort to help Trump steal an election. We have seen how norms and protocols are ignored when it comes to manipulating the system to help Donald Trump.

Failure to make a timely decision on the question posed in this case would amount to election interference. The issue then becomes that nothing can be done about it, as several conservative members of the Court treat it as a divine right of kings rather than the Supreme Court in a democracy.

Their actions are just one more reason to get everyone you know to vote this November. Vote against election deniers and people who do not vigorously defend our freedoms.

A special message from PoliticusUSA

If you are in a position to donate purely to help us keep PoliticusUSA’s doors open during a crucial election year, you can do so here.

We are honored to have put your interests first for 14 years because we are accountable only to our readers and we will not compromise on that fundamental, core value of PoliticusUSA.