re: #79 silverdolphin

I’m thinking the Supremes may have finessed the ruff or ruffed the finesse. In bridge, it is essentially a path to win by forcing one of the opposing players to decide what to play. But, because of the situation, no matter what they pay, it is very likely that the finessing hand will gain win. Without being the one who has to make the decision to play.

Here, the Supremes played it back to the Appeals Court. Which is moving fast and will have a quick decision. So whatever the Appeals Court choses, the Supremes have a better decision than if they had taken it directly.

If the Supremes agree with the Appeals, they simply deny certiorari . So the Appeals Court decision ends the matter. Or, if enough disagree, they can grant cert and move on.

But to do so they will for sure have to have 5 judges who disagree.

So, in either case, procedures look like they have been followed, without the Supremes being on the historical hook. I think it is very likely that the Appeals COurt will say Trump does not have total immunity.

And I think it is likely that at least 5 Supremes will agree. Hope so.

I think the key to this case isn’t going to be immunity per se, but wether what was being done was in any way an official act. I think it is actually important for presidents to have immunity from prosecution for official acts. ie. I don’t think a prosecutor should be able to charge Obama for murder because he ordered a drone strike on a US citizen who also happened to be a terrorist.

I don’t see how you can argue that what Trump was doing was in any way part his official duties, but that will be the trick for the defense.