Trump’s immunity case currently before the Supreme Court is the latest example of why it’s losing respect.
Donald Trump is asking the court to give him immunity from crimes he committed in his “official” capacity as president (sic). What’s most ridiculous about this entire thing is that the Supreme Court of the United States is seriously considering this.
SCOTUS never should have decided to hear this case. It should have been settled by the DC Court of Appeals who unanimously rejected Trump’s claim of immunity in February.
The Appeals Court wrote, “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution. The interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation.”
One of the Republican justices on the panel wrote, “I think it’s paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws.”
That should have settled it. Case closed. Question answered. Presidents don’t have immunity from trying to install themselves as fascist Oompa-Loompa dictators. Let’s start the trial. If SCOTUS had declined to hear the case, we would be done with it and Justice Tanya Chutkan could be setting a trial date for Trump’s attempt to steal the election and attempt an insurrection. But no, SCOTUS has to come along and mess things up (I’m trying to watch my language here as some of my clients have started to quote segments of my blogs and there’s going to be a dirty word at the end of this one).
At first, most journalists and legal scholars believed the only reason SCOTUS took this case was to help Trump delay his DC trial until after the 2024 election. But after the hearing this week, it seems they’re taking it seriously. To me, it sounds like a couple of the conservative justices are trying to give Trump immunity while not giving it to every president. For example, listen to some of the stupid crap Justice Samuel Alito hypothesized.
Alito said, “I’m not discussing the particular facts of this case.” What? Why not? He then argued that a grant of immunity “is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society, which is something that we all want.”
Alito explained, “If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”
Michael Dorf, a professor of law at Cornell said, “The apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling. Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.”
Alito argued that an outgoing president might attempt a coup to hang onto power if he’s not given immunity from attempting coups. This guy went to law school. He’s on the Supreme Court when he should be chasing an ambulance carrying a guy who slipped on a banana peel at a Walmart.
Pamela Karlan, a law professor at Stanford said, “In the real world, it’s really hard to imagine a ‘stable democratic society,’ to use Justice Alito’s word, where someone who did what Donald Trump is alleged to have done leading up to Jan. 6 faces no criminal consequences for his acts.”
“if Donald Trump is a harbinger of presidents to come, and from now on presidents refuse to leave office and engage in efforts to undermine the democratic process, we’ve lost our democracy regardless what the Supreme Court decides.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, another example of the mockery SCOTUS has become for taking bribes and not refusing himself from a case that involved his treasonous wife, argued that past presidents engaged in coups…in other countries.
Clarence Thomas actually went to law school. He has a law degree. Today, he’s on the Supreme Court when he should be representing a client who found a toe in a hotdog bought from a street vendor.
Justices Alito, Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh didn’t ask questions for the lawyers to give them legal answers. Instead, they seemed to ask rhetorical questions so they can give Trump immunity. How in the hell is Thomas going to vote against giving Trump immunity in a case where his wife, Ginni, helped him try to steal the 2020 election?
I don’t think the MAGA justices are good enough lawyers to be Donald Trump’s lawyers (in case you don’t get that, they’re bad. Good lawyers don’t work for a horrible client who won’t shut up and who doesn’t pay them).
SCOTUS is expected to issue a ruling in July in order to help Trump delay the trial. Legal scholars are predicting they’ll give presidents (Trump) immunity from “official” acts but not from personal ones, and leave it to Judge Chutkan to parse them. Either way, the trial probably won’t start until 2025…unless Trump wins the presidency.
In that horrible outcome, Donald Trump will appoint a stooge to head the Justice Department, probably someone more loyal than David Pecker. He’ll find a stooge even stoogier than William Barr. That stooge will then fire Special Counsel Jack Smith and throw out all the charges against Trump. Later, when there’s a new opening on the Supreme Court, Donald Trump will appoint Aileen Cannon. I’m calling it now, kids. I might be living in Belize at that point, but I’m expecting it.
It’s a joke that SCOTUS is hearing this case. It’s a joke that SCOTUS is seriously considering giving Trump immunity from attempting a coup. It’s a joke that they’re delaying this to help Trump.
The answer to Trump’s question in the cartoon is that there are justices on the Supreme Court more loyal than David Pecker…and together, they’re a bag of dicks.
Signed prints: The signed prints are just $40.00 each. Every cartoon on this site is available. You can pay through PayPal. If you don’t like PayPal, you can snail mail it to Clay Jones, P.O. Box 3721, Fredericksburg, VA 22402. I can mail the prints directly to you or if you’re purchasing as a gift, directly to the person you’re gifting.
Tales From The Trumpster Fire: I have five copies and you can order yours, signed by me, for $45.00. You can pay through PayPal to clayjonz@gmail.com. You can also snail it to P.O. Box 3721, Fredericksburg, VA 22402.
Knee-Deep In Mississippi: There are only 16 copies left of my first book, published in 1997. These can be purchased for $40.00
Tip Jar: If you want to support the cartoonist, please send a donation through PayPal to clayjonz@gmail.com. You can also snail it to P.O. Box 3721, Fredericksburg, VA 22402.
Watch me draw:
CLAYTOONZ 
So, Belize, huh? Unfortunately, I’m too old to emigrate.
LikeLiked by 3 people
If you’re really that old, look for a country with good national health care. Sad to say, not Belize. Costa Rica is pleasant. So, too, is western Europe. I had a myocardial infarction here and cannot hope for better care than what I received. Out of pocket cost: €0. Medications: ca. 25 a month.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My guess is that the US Supreme Court will determine that a President has immunity with regard to his official acts, and that they will then send the case back down to the lower courts to determine if the actions in question were official acts or if they were acts outside the scope of the job of the US presidency.
The problem is in the delay they’re creating in prosecuting Stinky (nice flies in your cartoon Clay), hoping he can elected and then screw everyone over. His cult doesn’t seem to understand that he would not “dictate” anything in their favor and would instead take away rights and privileges, except for his rich buddies.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Just saying, but no word in and of itself is dirty! What is dirty — and makes a words dirty — is the humsn reaction to that word. All words “considered” to be dirty are only dirty because the Christian religion has made them so. In and of themselves words like dicks, which in many uses just means penises, is actually just a word. In your usage above it just means “stupid assholes,” not penises. What could possibly be dirty about that?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oops. I should have qualified I was talking only about the English language. For this omission I apologize.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The most common expression I hear in this VERY catholic part of the world is puta madre [de Dios]. It can mean almost anything. It’s not considered dirty – it’s just an expression.
Y la madre quien te parió.
(words/expressions never or rarely heard: pendejo; hijo de puta; mariposa/maricón; me vale verga.)
LikeLiked by 2 people
The way I look at life, those words need to be heard much more often to take away the power people have given them. Not that I approve of words like “faggot” but it’s users are very hateful people. They put a lot of vitriol into it. They need to have the piwer taken out of it.
“Mother of God,” “Oh My God,” these are curses that once had power but through constant use have had that power taken away. That is what we need to do to all words!
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few years ago, there was a demonstration in Madrid that included a contingent of working girls. One had a sign that said (of the government) they may be hijos de putas, pero no son nuestros. Made me smile then. And laugh today. (They may be sons of whores, but they aren’t our sons).
Strangely, I never learned how to properly swear when I lived in Denmark. The Danes use English language curses to denigrate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL They can blame the English for their “French!” Good on them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting that David Pecker is the one person giving evidence against Trump that Trump isn’t shit-tweeting at. Makes you think there’s more in Pecker’s Pocket that Trump doesn’t want published…
LikeLiked by 4 people