superrific
Master of the ZZLverse
- Messages
- 10,669
See my thread: The Supreme Court Must Be Destroyed. It's a combination of a) embarrassment that they can't possibly defend what they are doing; and b) not wanting to commit to anything that could used the other way.They will only stop it when it's a dem president - that's why they stay vs rule. Ruling it is ok would permit things from a dem
This was also how they wrote Trump v. US. Criminal immunity of "official acts" without any real explanation of what is or isn't an official act. That did multiple jobs for them:
A. They didn't know what Jack Smith had, so they didn't want to commit to defining official act in such a way that he could satisfy.
B. They didn't want to commit to a rule that would allow cases to be dismissed against a Dem.
That's why the whole blame-Merrick theory doesn't really hold water. SCOTUS would have kept it going for another five years if they had to. They sent it down for further fact-finding. Then to the appeals court, then to Supremes who say that that wasn't actually an official act. Then back to the district court for additional fact-finding, and then to the appeals court, then Supremes say that wasn't an official act either. Ad infinitum.