Comments by "" (@1987BillyBob) on "Trump prosecutor asks SCOTUS to ignore Trump and rule on immunity" video.

The SC refused to expedite the ruling. Also, there are not questions if Jack Smith is even legally allowed to be in the position he is because the Senate did not make a ruling on his appointment.
4
@junerandolph8991 so you have no counter argument. I will walk away knowing I am correct as you cannot provide a counter point.
3
@fittekowner no, the reasoning is that it has to go through the process first. The SC cannot just take on cases like this without it going through the lower courts. Doing so gives the SC too much power along with too much work. Along with that the SC will have nothing to go off of when it finally gets to them.
2
It is which is why everything he is attacked he gains support.
2
@Abcdef12654 being fair it goes beyond that. People have not seen their lives improved like they did under Trump. And younger people who voted for Biden have not seen their lives improve. They are getting burnt out. We saw record voter turnout in 2020. I would not be surprised if we see very low voter turnout in 2024 leading to a Trump victory.
2
@junerandolph8991 yes they do. Read The Reason article "Special Counsel Jack Smith's Appointment Is Unconstitutional" Or the NY Post article entitled "Special counsel in Trump case unconstitutional, former Reagan AG says" After reading those, then give me your opinion and citations of a counter argument. I have read up on this. Doesn't mean I know it all. But what do you have to offer?
2
It is being challenged on if his position is constitutional
2
@b.t.40yrs_ago I cannot comment on that one as I have not read up on it. I am fair in my responses.
1
@gloriouslumi sure, but mainly they don't. As is this case, along with the CO one, and the classified documents are all going to the SC at some point. Going into 2024 the SC is going to have their hands full. So push back as long as they can.
1
@chuckd7423 I cannot comment on Watergate. I have not read up on it. Could be that case was of high importance with a lot of evidence. But again, I have not looked at it closely. The appeals court has not made a decision. Arguments start Jan 9. If the 3 judge panel sides with Smith Trump can appeal to the full court or the SC. Same with Smith if they side with Trump. That will lead to a lot of legal back and forth delaying this case even more. This is why Smith wants to rush it. How do you what Trump thinks? Sure, he may think he is not immune. But delaying is a legal strategy used all the time. This is smart in a case so public. The longer this goes on the less the people care. Also, when did Trump publicly admit to committing any crimes?
1
@chuckd7423 as for the SC being in Trump's corner. My fear is this. I feel the leaders in the democrat party are smart. They are extremely dangerous, corrupt and power hungry, but smart. I feel they want these cases to go to the SC and when they rule in favor of Trump then the democrats will cry that the SC is bias (even though I feel the Co ruling will get overturned by 7-2 at least and a good chance of 8-1). They will also point to the Roe v Wade being overturned 6-3 and other cases such as the vaccine mandate. The democrats will use that to try to pack the courts if they win the presidency and senate. If they pack the courts then our nation is done as it will be a one party nation, at least at the federal level.
1
@annakingry9157 this is a complicated situation that has hardly been touched on in the past. The SC is not expediting it because they need as much info as possible. See what the appeals court says and then go from there. This is going to get dragged on and come March, when Jack Smith wants the trial come, nothing will be settled. This will get dragged on through the election and the fact is that most voters will no longer care about this when it comes to vote.
1
Trump never said he will make the SC useless. Fact is that this has to go through the process. Not doing so opens up a can of worms of the SC taking on all cases. Also, there are now questions on if Jack Smith can legally be in the position he is. That his position would have to be approved by the Senate and never was. So time is ticking on Smith. The longer this is drawn out the less voters care and now there is the risk of Smith being removed from his position due to him being by unconstitutional means. That will prolong the process more because a person will have to be promoted and do hearings in Congress.
1
@SeansAmazingAdventures according to leftists tht
1