Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
Glad you noted the above. Those are the views of the conservative legal professors that Clarence brought up to Trump's lawyer who explained to Thomas that was not an argument he had made on Trump's behalf. In other words, it was not an issue before the court to decide.
Let me restate it one more time: "it was not an issue for the court to decide."
Thomas read it and presented it as if it were. He went out of his way to pull it out of the hat even though it was not an immunity issue. In other words, the question before the court did not concern the standing of the prosecutor of the case. It's an entirely different issue.
As far as I know, it didn't get any traction during the proceedings after Trump's own lawyer shot it down but we'll see.
Along with Alito's own bizarro question regarding the insane hypothetical that a sitting president might get so upset about being prosecuted after leaving office that he may, therefore, not leave office without causing mayhem afterwards and that would be the true harm to democracy so we really shouldn't be able to prosecute a president.
I agree with liberal legal pundits that the behavior of Thomas and Alito while hearing this case prove they both traded in their black robes for red caps long ago...
On edit: I'll note Thomas shouldn't have even been hearing the case because of his wife's overt actions in attempting to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. If he had even a modicum of professional ethics, he would have recused himself...
I am sure that is the take over on MSNBC, but it is incorrect. Legal standing is an issue initially raised by the Court
all the time. Here is an unbiased scholarly source:
"Federal courts must necessarily resolve standing inquiries before proceeding to the merits of a lawsuit. See, e.g., Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 732 (2008). In fact, a court may raise the issue of standing sua sponte (i.e., of its own accord) in order to ensure that it has jurisdiction, even if no party to the lawsuit contests standing. See, e.g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 534 U.S. 103, 110 (2001) (per curiam)."
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-6-1/ALDE_00012992/
I'm not saying that Smith lacks standing and that Trump is going to win on this issue. Seems like a long shot to me. But
if the Court dismisses this case
sua sponte because Smith lacks standing it is not some sort of unprecedented miscarriage of justice as MSNBC will claim. On the contrary, cases get punted for lack of standing, on the Court's own initiative, all the time. Jim
Jim
Jim
