As far as I know the only issue that has been in front of the Supreme Court has been the immunity case to determine if President's have immunity of actions taken while in office. Sometimes they will not entertain a point that is not being adjudicated.
You are impugning without fully understanding the dangers they face. Who knows, perhaps one of his lawyers asked a question that provoked the thought process that led Clarence Thomas to state what he said. It may have come from Judge Aileen Cannon who has been exposing a lot of the information that has been kept hidden by these criminals.
Sometimes I think people just fail to understand, that we are no longer living in the U.S. that wee were born into, or even existed when Trump was President, because they seem to think that rule-of-law is still inexistence, even after seeing all of the lawfare this is antithetical to what is normal.
You are seeing the expose of a criminal justice system that has been systematically destroyed by activism being taught in our law schools and the placement of many of these people throughout our legal system.
Jurisdiction and standing are adjudicated at every level by the court itself to ensure that the issues before the court can even be before the court.
So Blanche, Necheles and Bove are facing lawsuits related to defending Trump? Or Pat Cipollone, Jay Sekulow, Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi? How about Bruce Castor, David Schoen and Michael van der Veen? Or Alina Habba?
Meese and Mukasey mentioned it in support of the immunity case. It was not part of the appeal on Presidential immunity because it was mentioned in a different filing, but Trump's lawyers told Thomas they fully agreed with Meese and Mukasey.
Judge Cannon as of TODAY has agreed to expand the case into the legality of Jack Smith’s position requested by the Trump attorneys!!!
Great summation and so sadly true.