Search Posts

A big news for President Trump last night as the Supreme Court declines to speed up the ruling on Jack Smith's immunity case against him, 45 taking to Truth Social to celebrate the court's decision, saying in part, "Crooked Joe Biden and his henchmen waited three years to bring this sham case, and now they have tried and failed to rush this witch hunt through the courts." Here to break it all down, let's bring in Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett. Nobody better to talk about this, Greg, and I want to get right to it because it seemed significant to me that the High Court wasted no time in a single sentence with no descents saying no. Go with the regular appellate process. We're not taking this. What's your read? Yeah, it was always, Griff, highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would take the case at this juncture because it's premature. The justices want to hear first from the appellate court, the DC Circuit. That's the normal process, and for good reason. The intermediate court refines the issues and scrutinizes what is essentially a novel legal theory here of immunity. It's untested. So their opinions are quite valuable to the Supreme Court. The justices also don't like it, Griff, when somebody tries to butt to the front of the line and rob them, the justices of meaningful legal judgment, and here the special counsel really offered no compelling reason, except obviously wants a trial of Trump in the middle of a presidential campaign, I think, to damage him to the benefit of Democrats and Joe Biden, and perhaps the justices saw this for what it was, election interference. Jack Smith, the special counsel, keeps insisting Trump should be treated like everybody else all right, and then appeal the case like everyone else. Well, that's a great point, Greg, and it seems to me that what ultimately had the court take in it, what Jack Smith either intentionally or not would have accomplished, is to show that the court can be bullied and feel political pressure when they are the institution that should be independent. Yes, and the Supreme Court, Griff, doesn't like such antics or imaginations. Eventually, they may decide Trump's immunity argument. It is, I think, a credible one, that he acted consistent with his sworn duty to uphold and enforce all laws, and that includes ensuring free and fair elections. If he actually suspected there was fraud or faulty vote counting, well, he's entitled to pursue challenges under the law and even contest the electors, which Democrats obviously did in prior elections. Somehow, it's okay for them to do it, but not a Republican president. Well, and Greg, in just 30 seconds I got left, I want to ask you, because if it goes through the appellate process, it could still end up in the Supreme Court. Do you think that this could end up having implications on future presidents? Oh, I think it's a precedent-setting case, as to whether a president enjoys absolute immunity, limited immunity. What is the conduct in the course and scope of presidential duties? These are all open issues that the U.S. Supreme Court has never directly decided. The Supreme Court doesn't like to take political cases. In the end, they may be forced to. We'll wait and see.

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.