About the SCOTUS Immunity decision, I am not one to say "I told you so"..

[edhopper]

Well, that's not true, I love saying I told you so.
But be that as it may, when Jack Smith brought the expedited case to the SC and they said they would look at it, people hear celebrated. It was a done deal, they had the 5 votes, and Smith was a hero who won.
I was reticent to count on this Court for a good outcome on anything.
However they ultimately rule, I don't expect a good outcome. Neither the Law or the Constitution guides them

[spooky3]

1. Could we please not lump together the 3 Dem women with

The 6 extremists? Yes, the majority rules, unfortunately, but certainly our 3 respect the Constitution. I see a lot of posts criticizing the entire SCOTUS. Thanks.

[edhopper]

5. Point taken

I should say Conservative majority

[former9thward]

7. There were no dissents.

No matter what you think of the decision.

[spooky3]

10. That's not the point. Nt

[former9thward]

11. For those who think there was disagreement I think it is.

[spooky3]

12. My comment didn't deal with this specific decision so much as

General comments about this SCOTUS. See the last sentence of the OP (which the OP clarified in another post) and my entire post.

[Autumn]

8. Which Dem women on that court dissented?

[spooky3]

9. That indicates nothing other than they chose to let Appellate court,

Which is fast tracking this, to proceed.

[Autumn]

13. Okay, so how do you expect us to separate the 3 Dem women from the court?

[brush]

2. They're just delaying the issue. It will come to them after the lower courts have their say, and they will have to rule.

No way is a private citizen immune. The 6 maga justices will probably skirt a ruling on the 14A...because they won't want to highlight their obvious originalist hypocrisy as the 14A says what it says...he's ineligible to be on the presidential ballots...as the Colorado Supreme Court found.

[spooky3]

6. As I understand it 14a doesn't talk about ballots; so a state could allow TFG's

Name to be on the ballot, but if he won and a court deemed him ineligible to serve, he wouldn’t be permitted to take or stay in office. This would be messier than keeping him off the ballot.

My bold prediction: the appeals court will rule he was not immune wrt to his insurrectionist actions. TFG will appeal and SCOTUS will deny cert.

[J_William_Ryan]

3. "Could we please not lump together the 3 Dem women with the 6 extremists?"

A Supreme Court dominated by six corrupt, partisan, conservative ideologues.

[pfitz59]

4. SCrOTUS punted

they'll let the lower court decisions stand without review.

[duckworth969]

14. Chump will lose his immunity case

It’s just a matter of which court.

If SC picks it up, when they drop their ruling is the unknown factor.

I had thought there were no dissents when SC denied Smith but I might be mistaken about that.

Most folk seem to think that the SC has to drop what they’re doing and tend to all of these urgent matters.

They don’t.

The USSC could choose to sit on their hands and run these cases according to their usual schedule.

It’s entirely possible that Chump will be on ALL primary ballots if SC sits back on their heels.