When do you think the Supreme Court will rule on Trump's "executive privilege" case?

[kentuck]

The 1/6 Committee has asked them to expedite their decision. But, will they?

They are scheduled to rule on "mandated" vaccines, which are supported by Joe Biden, this Friday. It is possible they may not rule in Biden's favor.

What better time than the next Monday to refuse the Trump case, going along with the decisions of the District Court and the Appeals Court?

Roberts would really like to salvage a bit of the Court's reputation, by announcing a non-partisan decision.

[Walleye]

1. I get the feeling Roberts doesn't give a shit anymore

[Alexander Of Assyria]

4. I get the opposite feeling when it comes to protecting democracy...not sure the majority

are full blown fascists.

[Walleye]

6. I guess we're gonna find out the awful truth about this Court before too long

[Alexander Of Assyria]

9. Yes. Personally see it as a great day coming.

It will b the day all the Big Lies die, indictments to drop some time after.

SCOTUS was the demons last hope, and they have already declined the first attempts at killing democracy…kind of also showed their hand in declining vaccine mandates lately that arrived at their door…rejected 3x.

Think the majority still believe in fact, evidence, science, legal constitutional precedent of 37 years on the point, and ofc, democracy.

[Walleye]

10. Maybe the mob will attack the Supreme Court next and they will come to their senses finally

Seems like conservatives only act when their very lives are in danger

[kentuck]

11. I have to agree with you...

My last shred of optimism will permit nothing less.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

12. Yes, sir...hope, but have confidence...a bad result..and if democracy lovers do not

burn down the courthouse, metaphorically speaking ofc, then there’s the end.

So even after a bad result there is still legislative action…carve out for filibuster to fix it?

That’s what I mean by burning it.

[kentuck]

15. Even if the Repubs take back the House next November...

...that does not prevent the DOJ from continuing their investigation.

Even if Biden were to lose in '24, God forbid, the Attorney General could appoint a Special Prosecutor, just as Bill Barr did at the end of the Trump debacle.

So, I do not see a DOJ that is in the same rush as Congress may be?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. Are they under any kind of time limit?

Or could they simply put off a decision for months?

And of course, if they rule against him, I'm sure his lawyers will have yet another appeal to file.

[kentuck]

3. None, as I understand.

However, there could be a lot of negative stories if they appear to be playing "politics", one might think? That might be something they would like to avoid?

[Alexander Of Assyria]

5. Chief Judge will control the scheduling.

[kentuck]

7. I doubt that Roberts would want to keep it hanging out there for too long.

But we have under-estimated his partisan proclivities in the past.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

8. Yes. Expedited hearing, nice if denied on Jan. 6, yes?

Ruling being appealed: In its 68-page, unanimous opinion, the federal court not only paved the way for House investigators to obtain crucial evidence but offered a striking explanation of why it came to its conclusion. After rolling their eyes at Trump's argument for keeping the material secret, the judges wrote that "there is a sufficient factual predicate for inferring that former President Trump and his advisers played a materially relevant role" in what they described as "a singular event in this nation's history."

Got that right.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/10/politics/donald-trump-january-6-supreme-court/index.html

"The problem with that argument [executive privilege] is that the Supreme Court has already spoken to executive privilege back in 1974, when they ordered Nixon to produce his tapes to our office," Akerman said on Saturday. "Basically executive privilege is a privilege that belongs to the government. It doesn't belong to the individual."

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-appeal-1-6-documents-likely-denied-supreme-court-ex-watergate-prosecutor-1664832

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

18. As if negative stories would matter to them.

Just look at the speed with which they've upheld Roe v Wade.

[MissMillie]

13. I don't think they will rule

I think they're going to turn it down/send it back.

(And yes, that has the same effect as ruling against him)

[Alexander Of Assyria]

14. Take the case or not take the case? If not then District Court of Appeals ruling stands..

And it’s a whopper.

If take case it will get stretched out some more, but not long by usual scotus standards.

Granting hearing means 4 justices want to overturn the Nixon tape ruling.

They will not.

[kentuck]

16. I have heard that if they take the case...

...they would make a ruling near the end of February?

[RainCaster]

17. Why should a former POTUS have more "privilege"?

Than the current POTUS?
Asking for a friend.

[onenote]

19. SCOTUS is scheduled to hear oral argument on the mandate case on 1/7

not necessarily issue a ruling that day.

The January 6 Committee's request for expedited consideration of the stay/certiorari petition in the Trump subpoena case asked that the Court consider the matter at its 1/14 conference and that, should the Court grant the petition for stay/certiorari, the case should be "heard" (i.e. oral argument) during the Court's "February sitting" (which begins February 22)>

[Alexander Of Assyria]

21. Thx for that. The mandate ruling will like other two, dismissed. There's a raging pandemic ffs.

The « fascist coup plotters want to hide the truth hearing «  will have same ruling…or get out your hitler regalia, u gonna need it.

[Mad_Machine76]

20. Most Legal Experts

say that Trump has no case and that if they rule in his favor, they'd basically be overturning precedent established in US v. Nixon. But I don't know how much precedent really matters to the current bunch. Judging by the arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson case, it seems like they could do anything.