'We don't have a king here': Raskin slams SCOTUS decision to take up Trump immunity claim

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Politico

03/03/2024 12:58 PM EST


Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) railed against the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to take up Donald Trump’s argument that he is immune from prosecution for actions he took while president, urging the Court to move rapidly on a decision.

“This was an obvious case not to take up, and just let the D.C. Circuit Court ruling stand,” Raskin said Sunday during an interview on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”

The D.C. Circuit Court’s decision, Raskin said, was “completely exhaustive and totally compelling,” and Trump’s claims that a president could commit crimes with impunity while in office is “utterly antithetical to everything that we know about our Constitution.”

“We don’t have a king here, we had a revolution against a king and the Constitution is written so that [the] president’s main job is to take care [that] the laws are faithfully executed, not faithfully violated in his own interest,” Raskin said.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/03/jamie-raskin-slams-scotus-trump-immunity-case-00144595

---

Keep forgetting that Sundays are Psaki's regular slot despite her being on Mondays now too.

[RockRaven]

1. Reminds me of a new (to me) nickname for TFG that I just heard:

King Gorge the Turd

[niyad]

10. You nearly owed me a keyboard.

[Beartracks]

2. Love this: "the Constitution is written so that...

... [the] president’s main job is to take care [that] the laws are faithfully executed, not faithfully violated in his own interest."

=================

[republianmushroom]

3. But 5 of 9 would vote for one, if, it is a republican.

[70sEraVet]

4. It was only taken up by the USSC because one or two members ...

are determined to help Trump by delaying his trials until after the election. They have no intention of trying to make such an absurd ruling.

[NH Ethylene]

7. My thoughts exactly.

They can claim impartiality when the rule against the immunity claim, but they will have aided Trump by effectively delaying the trial until it is very possibly too late.

[Polybius]

8. It takes 4 to hear any case on the SC

So at least 4 wanted to hear it.

[samnsara]

11. i think they need to hear it otherwise this will be a constant mantra by tfg

[70sEraVet]

12. I looked it up, and learned that you are right about needing 4 to take a case.

Hits me in the pit of my stomach. I figured Thomas for sure, and probably Alito. But knowing that two others are using their robes to advance Trump's chances of re-election is .....

[FakeNoose]

5. I believe the original ruling will stand, but SCOTUS is helping Chump anyway

SCOTUS is giving him the delay he desperately needs, even though it's not going to overrule the DC Circuit Court.

[orangecrush]

6. Kick

[BradBo]

9. If they rule a President is immune from prosecution,

then Biden needs to have Seal Team 6 take out Trump right after the ruling.

[msfiddlestix]

13. Which Constitution might you be referring to, Raskin? (sarcasm)

According to Legal experts and scholars within our ranks, what the Alito/Thomas court decided on this immunity question is perfectly
fine. and we all should have faith our court system is working per normal. After all, no one else on this court dissented on the decision to take the case up at this time following the DC Circuit's decision.
Not one dissent, apparently.
So it's all good. And not one of us should be surprised when Alito/Thomas et al turns this fantasy notion of "the president is not a king" on it's head come April... or even more likely not until June, or maybe they'll wait until October, or after the November election.

The Constitution, and our democracy is totally safe in the hands of this supreme kangaroo court.