The US Supreme Court’s “upside-down” logic in Trump immunity case | Emily Bazelon | GZERO World

During arguments in the Trump immunity case, the conservative justices appeared worried that limiting presidential immunity would restrict executive power too far.
Subscribe to GZERO on KZbin and turn on notifications (🔔): / @gzeromedia
Sign up for GZERO Daily (free newsletter on global politics): rebrand.ly/gzeronewsletter
2024 is certain to be a historic year for the US Supreme Court: In June, SCOTUS will issue rulings on former president Donald Trump’s immunity claims in charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith involving Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Emily Bazelon joins Ian Bremmer on GZERO World to unpack the legal arguments at the heart of the case and what caught SCOTUS experts off-guard during oral arguments.
“It seemed going in that this was a pretty clear case,” Bazelon explains, “That Trump’s claims that he has absolute immunity for acts he committed in office is just too broad. It seemed obvious, and then it didn’t seem obvious at all.”
Like in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case that ultimately handed the election win to George W. Bush, Court watchers had expected the justices to issue a narrow ruling in the Trump case. But during arguments, the conservative justices asked questions that seemed more interested in raising hypotheticals about whether limiting the scope of immunity might restrict a president’s power too much. With Trump again on the ballot in 2024, the stakes could not be higher. Will the justices make a limited ruling or wade into the politics of the US presidential election with, as Justice Gorsuch put it, “a ruling for the ages”?
Watch full episode: • The major Supreme Cour...
Dig deeper: With public approval for the US Supreme Court at an all-time low, is it in danger of losing its legitimacy? Ian Explains here: • Ian Explains: Does it ...
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on KZbin • GZERO World with Ian B...
Also available at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld and on US public television.
Want to know more about global news and why it matters? Follow us on:
Instagram: / gzeromedia
Twitter: / gzeromedia
TikTok: / gzeromedia
Facebook: / gzeromedia
LinkedIn: / gzeromedia
Threads: threads.net/@gzeromedia
Subscribe to our KZbin channel and turn on notifications (🔔): / @gzeromedia
Sign up for GZERO Daily (free newsletter on global politics): rebrand.ly/gzeronewsletter
Subscribe to the GZERO podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
GZERO Media is a multimedia publisher providing news, insights and commentary on the events shaping our world. Our properties include GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, our newsletter GZERO Daily, Puppet Regime, the GZERO World Podcast, In 60 Seconds and GZEROMedia.com
#GZEROWorld #TrumpTrial #USSupremeCourt

[@ralphstarling6707]

No confidence in the Supreme Court!

[@ywtcc]

So much for checks and balances! Making immunity a prize of office seems like it attracts the wrong characters, and undermines the institution. Is it really too much to expect the courts to exercise judgement on a case by case basis?

[@zampanorama5423]

It is a shame in front of the democratic world, that this arguments are even heard by this "Supreme" Court with Thomas & Co.

[@zoltan4986]

Up side down we are .

[@Thichaou]

I feel sorry for the students that have to listen to this thing when it's lecturing them in the class!

[@Adsmjoseph]

Well a Dictater would want that immunity.

[@commentsonthetube14]

Of course theyre focusing on the future, thays their job... Not that I'm on Trump's side, but that's literally their job. If they make a shortsighted ruling, it can affect things for generations.

[@Adsmjoseph]

Russia will clame this.

[@user-og5fr4dv1f]

Total nonsense. Did he commit a criminal act or not?

[@shadowmaster9780]

Agitating an already angry mob, to invade, and disrupt, the U.S capitol elections certification, when trump knew he lost the elections fair n square.

[@maggienorris7833]

The jury is still out.

[@user-og5fr4dv1f]

@@maggienorris7833 it won’t even get to trial before the election. Trump wins even if he eventually loses.

[@yellowbox9912]

Which crime out of the 91 are you talking about?

[@PhantomOfManyTopics]

Bazelwoke

[@angliccivilization1346]

They are not being 'upside down' they are doing their job, which means considering ALL ramifications of any ruling for the future. That is what makes the Supreme Court unique. Their first job is to consider Constitutionality and precedent.

[@ywtcc]

When you're talking about prosecuting a current presidential candidate, the Supreme Court should be involved every time. Which means setting precedent for lower courts isn't what they should be doing. The actual threat to democracy is the prosecution of presidential candidates. The prosecution of former presidents is a non issue as far as democracy goes. It's a threat to kleptocracy, so you know certain elements on the Supreme Court have issues with prosecuting former presidents.

[@ralphstarling6707]

not believable!