re: #79 silverdolphin

I’m thinking the Supremes may have finessed the ruff or ruffed the finesse. In bridge, it is essentially a path to win by forcing one of the opposing players to decide what to play. But, because of the situation, no matter what they pay, it is very likely that the finessing hand will gain win. Without being the one who has to make the decision to play.

Here, the Supremes played it back to the Appeals Court. Which is moving fast and will have a quick decision. So whatever the Appeals Court choses, the Supremes have a better decision than if they had taken it directly.

If the Supremes agree with the Appeals, they simply deny certiorari . So the Appeals Court decision ends the matter. Or, if enough disagree, they can grant cert and move on.

But to do so they will for sure have to have 5 judges who disagree.

So, in either case, procedures look like they have been followed, without the Supremes being on the historical hook. I think it is very likely that the Appeals COurt will say Trump does not have total immunity.

And I think it is likely that at least 5 Supremes will agree. Hope so.

I suspect the bolded will end up being the core of any filing for certiorari, that the lower courts failed to sit around and agonize over the “very serious” issues brought up in Trump’s arguments and the SCOTUS bench needs to spend weeks or even months on them so their client gets a fair shake. Preferably holding things up until…oh…August (at the earliest) when the DOJ’s policy against actions that would adversely effect elections kicks in.