The Supreme Court’s refusal to delay Donald Trump’s hush money sentencing is certainly a noteworthy event, and the 5-4 vote itself raises many questions. It’s surprising, given the gravity of the situation, that the decision wasn’t more unanimous. The fact that it was so closely divided, with three liberal justices siding with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, against four conservative justices, underscores the deep partisan divisions within the court. This narrow margin suggests that even within the conservative bloc, there might be differing opinions on the appropriate course of action.
The Court’s brief, unsigned order stated that the issues Trump raised could be addressed through the normal appeals process.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday. The court deemed the burden on Trump’s presidential transition “relatively insubstantial,” given the judge’s intent to impose no penalty. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election, a conviction he contests based on claims of presidential immunity. While Trump will appear virtually, the ruling sparked further ethical concerns surrounding a phone call between Justice Alito and the President-elect prior to the appeal.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush-money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday morning. The Court reasoned that the sentencing’s burden on Trump’s responsibilities is minimal, given the judge’s indication of no penalties. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election. While Trump argues the case involves official actions and thus immunity, the lower court rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene preemptively. A subsequent ethics controversy arose from a phone call between Justice Alito and Trump before the appeal.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker