If I under USSC procedure correctly, the actual decision is made within a couple of days of oral argument and the rest of the time until decision is handed down is spent writing the opinion, dissents, and all the legal writing each justice does with the clerks. Thus the immunity case was decided before this stuff happened. There was rumor that originally Obama care was struck down, but Robert’s waffled at the end and rescued it. I cannot find anything in USSC procedure that allows for a re-vote. I suppose logic would dictate that if there were a re-vote and change of decision based on the Bragg case it could be considered ex-parte and not working in arguments made at the time of the hearing. Seems to me further that the court does not adjudicate a case (the finders of fact are the jury alone) but rather work from the closed record and argue the law.
I don’t see how this case which occurred prior to the presidents inaguration fits into the scope of presidential immunity. But we as a nation seem to make the rules up currently as we go along.
According to Mark Levin, the only way that this case gets expedited is a new application using a common law writ, which though very unusual has a precedence in the history of the USSC. He sighted Bush v Gore as the controlling authority on equal protection grounds as in this case the court granted cert over a purely states issue as it impacted the general election. It fits in the rules but there was a little pretzel twist of the law from a pure tenth amendment standpoint.
It wouldn’t, except that the alleged “crime” of “falsified” business bookings is alleged to have occurred after Trump took office.
It’s legal. It’s called the All Writs Act which grants the Supreme Court and all courts established by Congress to issue all writs necessary…