Re: Immunity oral argument (looking for Katyal discussion with Lawrence, found:
*Barrett pins Trump down on his absolute immunity arguments
As the second-least senior justice, Barrett sits at the far end of the Supreme Court’s mahogany bench. But she was at the center of some of the most important turning points of the nearly three-hour oral argument Thursday about Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case.
Barrett was one of several justices to get Trump attorney John Sauer to agree that a president’s “private” actions – as opposed to his “official” actions – do not qualify for immunity. That was a notable break from earlier arguments Trump submitted that called for “absolute” immunity on a much wider scale of acts. In one key exchange, Barrett then walked Sauer through a series of hypothetical questions that closely mirrored the allegations in the special counsel’s indictment. . .
Barrett returned to the theme as she questioned the special counsel’s attorney, Michael Dreeben. In that exchange, she noted that prosecutors are eager to move the case to trial quickly and even seemed to sketch out a path to do so.
“The special counsel has expressed some concern for speed and wanting to move forward,” Barrett said. Couldn’t the special counsel “just proceed based on the private conduct and drop the official conduct?”
Dreeben responded that might work, as long as the court crafted a test that would make most of Trump’s post-election actions private rather than official.
Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, described Barrett as a “key player” in the immunity case.'
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-immunity-idaho-abortion/index.html
SO, there may be 4+ 'good' votes, on immunity. Katyal stated it well, on Lawrence show yesterday.
