Answer: Theoretically, the court is supposed to release them as they are done. Count me as skeptical, however, that it has not decided the immunity case. It sure looks to me and other informed court watchers that at least a couple justices are dragging their feet, giving felon and former president Donald Trump a week or so more to run out the clock before the election.
A reader asks: Wouldn’t term-limited Supreme Court justices and other federal judges pander for post-term riches and positions?
Answer: Better than accepting lavish gifts when one is still on the court! Most proposals for term limits envision the justices would remain on the federal bench, but at a lower court level. Judges do retire voluntarily now, so the potential for future jobs already exists.
A reader asks: I just read one donor pledged $50 million to Trump, another $20 million to President Biden. Is that allowed?
Answer: Sadly, yes. There are limits on direct donations to a campaign (“hard money”) or to a party, but there are no limits on giving to third-party, ostensibly independent groups — e.g., super PACs, Section 501(c)(4) groups — that can run ads and engage in other campaign-related activity.
A reader asks: Many people are expecting SCOTUS to maximize delay by sending the immunity case back to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan for analysis of which acts were presidential and which were private, thus ensuring there will be no trial before the election. On the “MissTrial” podcast, Danya Perry suggested Chutkan could do that analysis by holding a “mini-trial,” bringing in witnesses and experts to talk about the facts of the case. So we might not get the trial of Trump, but we would get all the facts in front of the public before the election. What do you think about this idea?
Answer: Yes, several legal gurus have suggested this. It may not get the wall-to-wall coverage a trial would, but the public would have the benefit of some damning evidence. It’s a poor substitute for a full trial that, absent Supreme Court stalling, could have been held and completed already.
A reader asks: Hypothetical: Second-term President Biden is able to convince a next-term Democratic majority Senate to curtail the filibuster and pass term limits on Supreme Court justices. Question: Would the sitting justices have to be grandfathered in, allowing them to serve out their lifetime appointments, or could the Senate implement term limits effective immediately, on a schedule such that the most senior justice would need to vacate his seat every two years until we have nine sitting justices with 18-year terms? In the latter scenario, I think every sitting justice would minimally be able to serve 18 years or more.
Answer: It all depends on how Congress would draft it. The problem is that the constitutionality of all of these variations would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Hmmm, I wonder how it would come out? If struck down, the alternative (aside from impeachment, which is virtually impossible) would be a constitutional amendment for term limits or court expansion.
A reader asks: During the debate, Trump needs to be checked on the spot for the sorts of obvious lies he spouts with regularity. It shouldn’t be up to Biden but to a fact-checker in attendance. Is there a plan for that?
Answer: It is not clear whether the moderators will do any of this, but there is no independent fact-checker present. Afterward, I expect pundits to have a field day with Trump’s torrent of lies.
A reader asks: What would the Republican Party and its MAGA minions do if Trump … [had a health episode]. … Would they still run with him as a candidate?
Answer: If it happens before the convention, the convention would actually pick the nominee (as in the old days)! If after the convention, the Republican National Committee would choose. There is no real mechanism if the president-elect becomes incapacitated after the election but before the inauguration. The inauguration would have to go forward, whereupon the 25th Amendment would control.
At Thursday’s debate, Biden would do well to focus on the ethically challenged and ideologically extreme Supreme Court as well as lower judges (who are also incompetent in some cases) such as District Court Judges Aileen Cannon and Matthew Kacsmaryk, whom Trump…
Read More: Opinion | Mailbag Newsletter: The Supreme Court is off the rails