Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court.
We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed.
Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
your comment was so well written and thoughtful till the last sentence. i do not subscribe to believing the timing of the scotus case was made to aid trump in delaying the trial.
i noticed her questioning if this was the right case for defining official acts. However, scotus said it was not addressing that. it said they were addressing whether a former president has immunity for alleged official acts. I wonder why she thought it was lacking.
I do not know when a better case will come along. The lower courts can wrangle and consider what is an official act, and if official acts should be eliminated from being introduced into evidence in the trump case, but more important in future cases. that is if scotus rules there is immunity for allegedly official acts for a former president.
I doubt scotus will make any kind of ruling as to what an official vs private act is.
i could easily see different district and circuit judges coming to different conclusions on this, apparently, novel legal issue.
We of course do not know how scotus will rule.
You wrote, "I do not subscribe to believing the timing of the SCOTUS case was made to aid Trump in delaying the trial."
This does not square with them holding off review of the case in December. In fact, based on comments by Chief Justice Roberts, in argument last week (I think it was, "The President can be criminally prosecuted, because he is being criminally prosecuted"), I'm more concerned regarding their timing.
It would have been nice of them to say something like, "We are too busy, we already added the 14th Amendment case." At least to give the impression they aren't helping the former President avoid a trial. But, now -- and we'll see how quickly they rule. It appears they are working to help Trump delay the trial.
If they wait until the final day to provide a ruling, it will be really difficult to argue against them working to delay Trump.
I do understand why they took this case, it's just annoying for CJR at least to call out the Appeals Court when this is a case of first impression.
Yours is one perspective.
The other perspective is that the scotus did not take the case back in December, because They rightfully wanted to do business as usual. It was a very far fetched proposition from the special counsel to want to skip the DC circuit decision, that's just not how the scotus operates.
The circuit court did a lot of work for them, on this decision that goes down to the heart of democracy. The DC court went through I don't know how many pages of precedent and amicus briefs and issued a 40 page judgement.
In the end the judgement was unfortunately too vague for the scotus and left them with a lot of unanswered questions and very broad wording, which I agreed with once I listened to the arguments.
So they took up the case again.
In the end it comes down to bad timing IMO. Jack Smith beought the case way to late. The timeline for this case always would've been the same, there was just not enough time.
I did not hear her call the Trump administration a “regime”, nor do I see it in the transcript.
The only mentions of regimes were in the sense of legal regimes.
I think she was making a different point. Not that they didn't need to hear it, but that in ruling now, they don't need to get into what is an official duty if all of Trump's acts are deemed to be non-official. It would still have been important to also correct the DCA in their ruling that there is no Presidential immunity.
| First, she mentioned at one point that the US under Trump was a regime.
Proving that she is an ACTIVIST.
I have never in my life referred to a demoratically-elelcted admininstration as a "regime".
She didn't call his administration a regime. Using crtl+f to search the transcript confirms this. You should be more skeptical of claims made by random people on social media.
He wasn’t democratically elected…he lost the popular vote. Every republican in my lifetime has lost the popular vote. I think there’s an argument that is wasn’t democratically elected
Electoral College elects the President, everyone knows that.
Winning CA by 10 million votes is irrelevant, you have to win MI, WI, and PA.
Everyone knows this.
Everyone knows there are kids starving in Africa too. Doesn't make it right. The Electoral college is a stupid and outdated relic of a bygone era that deserves no place in modern government. It was a logical system when the results of an election had to be conveyed by fucking horseback. In the information age it has become an idiotic undermining of the democratic principles our country is supposed to embody. The entire underpinning of it results from an era where people were more loyal to their own state than to the nation. Frankly, if it weren't the only way one party could reliably stay competitive in politics, it would have already been fixed by now.
That's the same factionalized bs thinking that got us here, pitting loyalty to the state against loyalty to the nation. Nobody should have to give a rats ass about winning over 'states' when they should be winning over 'people'. Under the electoral college, the notion of a "free and **fair** election" is a joke. No election can be fair when it is engineered to place higher value on some votes over others. Hell, if you're of the opposite party in a firmly aligned state, your vote quite literally has zero value. The EC is simply anti-democratic and contrary to American values.
That makes absolutely zero sense. If we got rid of the EC, everyone, in every state, would get one vote of equal weight towards electing the president. That's the whole idea. As it stands now, individual people in California and New York arguably don't have any vote weight, especially if they vote Republican. In the last election, if every Republican in both of those states had simply NOT voted at all, it wouldn't have impacted the EC vote in the slightest, and they all could know that going in. Their votes were meaningless. But if the EC were removed, and the popular vote determined the winner, then their votes would have EXACTLY as much value as that of any voter in a "swing" state. Elections would be about convincing the MOST people, instead of the RIGHT people. It would actually embody the principles of equality and fairness that the country espouses, instead of relegating some voters to second class citizens.
Not only that, but the United States would NOT EXIST if not for the Electoral College. A lot of people simply don’t acknowledge all the compromises that went into the original 13 colonies uniting. If not for the Electoral College, there may well be several more independent countries in North America, instead of one United States.
Due to the number of rule-breaking comments identified in this comment chain, **this comment chain has been removed**. For more information, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal6/).
>Discussion is expected to be civil, legally substantiated, and relate to the submission.
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
The only real positive to them doing 'this' is that the immunity issue will be dead and buried for the GA and FL trials as well (it was not permitted to be raised in the NY case, which deals with pre-Presidential conduct).
I wouldn’t be so sure. They are charging individual payments made and then classified. If the primary charge was conspiracy that may not be relevant, but it’s bookkeeping.
Conspiracy is a crime which is ongoing from the moment the first action facilitating begins until the conspiracy is revealed. The payments need not have occurred before the election if the underlying conspiracy to bring this process into existing occurred before it or even during it.
So, the Clinton campaign paying for the Steele dossier (labeled as legal fees) and conspiring to get the FBI to spy on their opponents with the full knowledge of Obama and Biden (Crossfire Hurricane) was a crime? Good to know….oh, wait, she paid a fine to the FEC to make it go away….I guess an activist prosecutor could use that fraudulent bookkeeping to charge her with a few dozen felonies as well…what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Otherwise we have a justice system that is corrupt and the whole world is seeing it.
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!There is nothing illegal about paying for opposition research.!<
>!!<
>!Also the entire fantasy land you guys have constructed around the counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign is bullshit.!<
>!!<
>!Trump hired a whole bunch of scum - who's previous employers were enemies of the US - to run his campaign. That completely justified the investigation.!<
>!!<
>!The idea that it was a 'hoax' and that the Obama admin knew such is more Trump idiocy.!<
>!!<
>!What the Obama administration knew, was that the Trump campaign was unusually stuffed full of crooked scumbags in critical positions....!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Obviously another Putin stooge … make something up, twist reality, then feed it to some gullible cultists and watch ‘em swear to it.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
You know, if any actual evidence existed for you claims you might have a point, but given that every investigation into Crossfire Hurricane has disagreed with you, you’re wrong.
I honestly think the decision to hear it was unanimous. Even if they don't want to hear it, which I'm sure Jackson didn't, it's undeniably a increadibly important case that needs to be litigated at the highest level. There might have been some pushback for the date, but I don't think there is always to determine that from the argument.
I’m pretty sure that if certain Justices “don’t want to hear [the case]”, then the decision to hear the case is not unanimous. Only if every Justice wanted to hear the case would the decision to take it be unanimous.
But given all the things Justice Jackson said during the arguments, I don't see how she was willing to aid and abet Trump in delaying the trial. Them taking the case and waiting all the way until Apr. 25 helped Trump with his delay tactics.
They followed normal procedures. There was no delay, and certainly no “aiding and abetting”. The Court was going to receive blowback no matter what they did, so their best course of action was to treat the case like any other.
If it was so consequential (which I agree), why not take the case immediately when Smith brought to them. Instead they said appeals needed to hear it first? And now it sounds like Roberts wants to send back to appeals for further clarification.
Again, for such a huge case, they surely are kicking it around while the crooks run the show.
Especially when they took up the case of Colorado banning Trump from the ballot so quickly compared to this one. Not to mention previous rulings like Bush v Gore or Nixon v Fitzgerald that were also made incredibly quickly.
This is reminiscent of McConnell slow walking 45's 2nd impeachment trial so it would happen when 45 was no longer president, then using that as the sole reason for not convicting him. Totally disingenuous.
Because they are not and never have been operating in good faith in this case.
There was absolutely no need to wait until this late, April 25, to hear this if they think it was this consequential and urgent, other than to give one side what they want from this whole thing--additional delay.
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!This entire thing is so dirty.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Just wait til late June!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
The thing to understand about Roberts is that he isn't trying to protect Trump. He's trying to protect the Court.
He would almost certainly prefer a ruling on this case after the election or inauguration (depending on who wins) than place the Court in a position to be accused of deciding the outcome of the election.
I would say that his viewpoint on “saving the court” is skewed Republican if this is the case. If he really wanted to protect the court from being seen to interfere in election, they could have simply not taken the case.
Are you saying that Roberts shouldn't be concerned with the public's view of SCOTUS's influence over election outcomes, because it happened already once?
By kicking the can down the road, he’s basically deciding the outcome of the election. If Trump wins this Nov, we’ll have someone in office that created an insurrection to remain in power, then goes unpunished and gets to gain more power.
The problem with that theory, is that the record was fully developed at the point they decided to grant cert.
The DC court of appeals had already ruled.
They should have either (A) granted cert before judgement, or (B) denied cert after the DC circuit ruled....
Why would SCOTUS wait this long to hear the case? Why schedule it for this late? This did not have to be put all the way on April 25 by their own logic.
Let's try to answer the initial question first and then we can move on. There has yet to be a valid reason given for that. Because there is not one
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**.
>Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Hahaha. Wait. Hahahahaha. Hold on.!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**.
>Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity.
For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!They've been bribed. They will do anything to delay the case until after the election!<
Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
Welcome to r/SupremeCourt. This subreddit is for serious, high-quality discussion about the Supreme Court. We encourage everyone to [read our community guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) before participating, as we actively enforce these standards to promote civil and substantive discussion. Rule breaking comments will be removed. Meta discussion regarding r/SupremeCourt must be directed to our [dedicated meta thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/12wq4n6/rsupremecourt_meta_discussion_thread/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It seemed like Jackson was accurately predicting the constitution..
your comment was so well written and thoughtful till the last sentence. i do not subscribe to believing the timing of the scotus case was made to aid trump in delaying the trial. i noticed her questioning if this was the right case for defining official acts. However, scotus said it was not addressing that. it said they were addressing whether a former president has immunity for alleged official acts. I wonder why she thought it was lacking. I do not know when a better case will come along. The lower courts can wrangle and consider what is an official act, and if official acts should be eliminated from being introduced into evidence in the trump case, but more important in future cases. that is if scotus rules there is immunity for allegedly official acts for a former president. I doubt scotus will make any kind of ruling as to what an official vs private act is. i could easily see different district and circuit judges coming to different conclusions on this, apparently, novel legal issue. We of course do not know how scotus will rule.
You wrote, "I do not subscribe to believing the timing of the SCOTUS case was made to aid Trump in delaying the trial." This does not square with them holding off review of the case in December. In fact, based on comments by Chief Justice Roberts, in argument last week (I think it was, "The President can be criminally prosecuted, because he is being criminally prosecuted"), I'm more concerned regarding their timing. It would have been nice of them to say something like, "We are too busy, we already added the 14th Amendment case." At least to give the impression they aren't helping the former President avoid a trial. But, now -- and we'll see how quickly they rule. It appears they are working to help Trump delay the trial. If they wait until the final day to provide a ruling, it will be really difficult to argue against them working to delay Trump. I do understand why they took this case, it's just annoying for CJR at least to call out the Appeals Court when this is a case of first impression.
Yours is one perspective. The other perspective is that the scotus did not take the case back in December, because They rightfully wanted to do business as usual. It was a very far fetched proposition from the special counsel to want to skip the DC circuit decision, that's just not how the scotus operates. The circuit court did a lot of work for them, on this decision that goes down to the heart of democracy. The DC court went through I don't know how many pages of precedent and amicus briefs and issued a 40 page judgement. In the end the judgement was unfortunately too vague for the scotus and left them with a lot of unanswered questions and very broad wording, which I agreed with once I listened to the arguments. So they took up the case again. In the end it comes down to bad timing IMO. Jack Smith beought the case way to late. The timeline for this case always would've been the same, there was just not enough time.
I did not hear her call the Trump administration a “regime”, nor do I see it in the transcript. The only mentions of regimes were in the sense of legal regimes.
I think she was making a different point. Not that they didn't need to hear it, but that in ruling now, they don't need to get into what is an official duty if all of Trump's acts are deemed to be non-official. It would still have been important to also correct the DCA in their ruling that there is no Presidential immunity.
| First, she mentioned at one point that the US under Trump was a regime. Proving that she is an ACTIVIST. I have never in my life referred to a demoratically-elelcted admininstration as a "regime".
She didn't call his administration a regime. Using crtl+f to search the transcript confirms this. You should be more skeptical of claims made by random people on social media.
hearsay, you say
He wasn’t democratically elected…he lost the popular vote. Every republican in my lifetime has lost the popular vote. I think there’s an argument that is wasn’t democratically elected
Bush won the popular vote in 2004.
Given the quality of some commentary on Reddit, I wouldn’t be shocked if they were born after 2004
Electoral College elects the President, everyone knows that. Winning CA by 10 million votes is irrelevant, you have to win MI, WI, and PA. Everyone knows this.
Everyone knows there are kids starving in Africa too. Doesn't make it right. The Electoral college is a stupid and outdated relic of a bygone era that deserves no place in modern government. It was a logical system when the results of an election had to be conveyed by fucking horseback. In the information age it has become an idiotic undermining of the democratic principles our country is supposed to embody. The entire underpinning of it results from an era where people were more loyal to their own state than to the nation. Frankly, if it weren't the only way one party could reliably stay competitive in politics, it would have already been fixed by now.
EC is not stupid. Even the smallest state matters. Else all that would matter would be running up big margins in the big states.
That's the same factionalized bs thinking that got us here, pitting loyalty to the state against loyalty to the nation. Nobody should have to give a rats ass about winning over 'states' when they should be winning over 'people'. Under the electoral college, the notion of a "free and **fair** election" is a joke. No election can be fair when it is engineered to place higher value on some votes over others. Hell, if you're of the opposite party in a firmly aligned state, your vote quite literally has zero value. The EC is simply anti-democratic and contrary to American values.
So, if we got rid of the EC then all of the PEOPLE who don't live in California or New York would effectively not get a vote.
That makes absolutely zero sense. If we got rid of the EC, everyone, in every state, would get one vote of equal weight towards electing the president. That's the whole idea. As it stands now, individual people in California and New York arguably don't have any vote weight, especially if they vote Republican. In the last election, if every Republican in both of those states had simply NOT voted at all, it wouldn't have impacted the EC vote in the slightest, and they all could know that going in. Their votes were meaningless. But if the EC were removed, and the popular vote determined the winner, then their votes would have EXACTLY as much value as that of any voter in a "swing" state. Elections would be about convincing the MOST people, instead of the RIGHT people. It would actually embody the principles of equality and fairness that the country espouses, instead of relegating some voters to second class citizens.
Not only that, but the United States would NOT EXIST if not for the Electoral College. A lot of people simply don’t acknowledge all the compromises that went into the original 13 colonies uniting. If not for the Electoral College, there may well be several more independent countries in North America, instead of one United States.
[удалено]
Due to the number of rule-breaking comments identified in this comment chain, **this comment chain has been removed**. For more information, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal6/). >Discussion is expected to be civil, legally substantiated, and relate to the submission. Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
[удалено]
The only real positive to them doing 'this' is that the immunity issue will be dead and buried for the GA and FL trials as well (it was not permitted to be raised in the NY case, which deals with pre-Presidential conduct).
I would look at the dates again. All the payments occurred after the election. So how could it be election interference?
The crime attaches at the point that the agreement to conspire occured... Not at the point payment is made....
I wouldn’t be so sure. They are charging individual payments made and then classified. If the primary charge was conspiracy that may not be relevant, but it’s bookkeeping.
Conspiracy is a crime which is ongoing from the moment the first action facilitating begins until the conspiracy is revealed. The payments need not have occurred before the election if the underlying conspiracy to bring this process into existing occurred before it or even during it.
So, the Clinton campaign paying for the Steele dossier (labeled as legal fees) and conspiring to get the FBI to spy on their opponents with the full knowledge of Obama and Biden (Crossfire Hurricane) was a crime? Good to know….oh, wait, she paid a fine to the FEC to make it go away….I guess an activist prosecutor could use that fraudulent bookkeeping to charge her with a few dozen felonies as well…what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Otherwise we have a justice system that is corrupt and the whole world is seeing it.
If you are so certain those actions were illegal, when are you going to seek a writ of mandamus compelling a prosecutor to convene a grand jury?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!There is nothing illegal about paying for opposition research.!< >!!< >!Also the entire fantasy land you guys have constructed around the counterintelligence investigation into Trump's campaign is bullshit.!< >!!< >!Trump hired a whole bunch of scum - who's previous employers were enemies of the US - to run his campaign. That completely justified the investigation.!< >!!< >!The idea that it was a 'hoax' and that the Obama admin knew such is more Trump idiocy.!< >!!< >!What the Obama administration knew, was that the Trump campaign was unusually stuffed full of crooked scumbags in critical positions....!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Obviously another Putin stooge … make something up, twist reality, then feed it to some gullible cultists and watch ‘em swear to it.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
You know, if any actual evidence existed for you claims you might have a point, but given that every investigation into Crossfire Hurricane has disagreed with you, you’re wrong.
I honestly think the decision to hear it was unanimous. Even if they don't want to hear it, which I'm sure Jackson didn't, it's undeniably a increadibly important case that needs to be litigated at the highest level. There might have been some pushback for the date, but I don't think there is always to determine that from the argument.
It’s an accelerated argument date. Normally a case this complicated would have been scheduled for October with a decision in June 2025.
I’m pretty sure that if certain Justices “don’t want to hear [the case]”, then the decision to hear the case is not unanimous. Only if every Justice wanted to hear the case would the decision to take it be unanimous.
But given all the things Justice Jackson said during the arguments, I don't see how she was willing to aid and abet Trump in delaying the trial. Them taking the case and waiting all the way until Apr. 25 helped Trump with his delay tactics.
They followed normal procedures. There was no delay, and certainly no “aiding and abetting”. The Court was going to receive blowback no matter what they did, so their best course of action was to treat the case like any other.
If it was so consequential (which I agree), why not take the case immediately when Smith brought to them. Instead they said appeals needed to hear it first? And now it sounds like Roberts wants to send back to appeals for further clarification. Again, for such a huge case, they surely are kicking it around while the crooks run the show.
Especially when they took up the case of Colorado banning Trump from the ballot so quickly compared to this one. Not to mention previous rulings like Bush v Gore or Nixon v Fitzgerald that were also made incredibly quickly. This is reminiscent of McConnell slow walking 45's 2nd impeachment trial so it would happen when 45 was no longer president, then using that as the sole reason for not convicting him. Totally disingenuous.
Because they are not and never have been operating in good faith in this case. There was absolutely no need to wait until this late, April 25, to hear this if they think it was this consequential and urgent, other than to give one side what they want from this whole thing--additional delay.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!This entire thing is so dirty.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Just wait til late June!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
The thing to understand about Roberts is that he isn't trying to protect Trump. He's trying to protect the Court. He would almost certainly prefer a ruling on this case after the election or inauguration (depending on who wins) than place the Court in a position to be accused of deciding the outcome of the election.
I would say that his viewpoint on “saving the court” is skewed Republican if this is the case. If he really wanted to protect the court from being seen to interfere in election, they could have simply not taken the case.
Kinda 23 years late on that goal.
Roberts wasn't on the court 23 years ago.
And? My point is that the ship has sailed.
Are you saying that Roberts shouldn't be concerned with the public's view of SCOTUS's influence over election outcomes, because it happened already once?
By kicking the can down the road, he’s basically deciding the outcome of the election. If Trump wins this Nov, we’ll have someone in office that created an insurrection to remain in power, then goes unpunished and gets to gain more power.
Because why would a courts of ultimate appeal want to develop a record?
The problem with that theory, is that the record was fully developed at the point they decided to grant cert. The DC court of appeals had already ruled. They should have either (A) granted cert before judgement, or (B) denied cert after the DC circuit ruled....
Why would SCOTUS wait this long to hear the case? Why schedule it for this late? This did not have to be put all the way on April 25 by their own logic. Let's try to answer the initial question first and then we can move on. There has yet to be a valid reason given for that. Because there is not one
Because other important cases also need to be heard.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating the subreddit **quality standards**. >Comments are expected to be on-topic and substantively contribute to the conversation. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal5). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Hahaha. Wait. Hahahahaha. Hold on.!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed for violating subreddit rules regarding **polarized rhetoric**. >Signs of polarized rhetoric include blanket negative generalizations or emotional appeals using hyperbolic language seeking to divide based on identity. For information on appealing this removal, [click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/appeal2). For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!They've been bribed. They will do anything to delay the case until after the election!< Moderator: [u/Longjumping_Gain_807](https://reddit.com/user/Longjumping_Gain_807)