SCOTUS would be crazy not to rule in favor of Smith.

I see the speed with which the Supreme Court has accepted Jack Smith’s request for a hearing on the issue of Presidential Immunity in the January 6 prosecution of Trump as a golden opportunity to cement their “supremacy”, and create a modicum of good will at the same time. It’s kind of a Marbury v. Madison moment for not only the court, but for the entire judicial system.

Maybe they’ll cave, but I think the odds of their taking the opportunity to make a major consequential decision that will inure to the benefit of the judicial system (and the nation) are high.

After I posted the foregoing to Threads, a friend offered his opinion that Clarence Thomas would side with Trump, adding “for starters”. I responded as follows:

Actually, no, I don’t. I suspect he might. There’s lots of evidence to suggest he would do that, but there are long-term, historical reasons why this is a deeply historical opportunity for the court to strengthen the ruling of Marbury v. Madison. If you’re not familiar with the ruling, Britannica explains:

“Marbury v. Madison is important because it established the power of judicial review for the U.S. Supreme Court and lower federal courts with respect to the Constitution and eventually for parallel state courts with respect to state constitutions.“

I may be wrong – perhaps crazy – but what remaining legal spidey sense I have (it’s been over 47 years since I graduated law school) tells me this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to further cement the court’s power to be the final say in matters of constitutionality.

It doesn’t have to be unanimous, though I believe there are powerful and important reasons for the court to rule en banc.

If they pass up this opportunity to strengthen the position (and power) of the court to rule on the constitutionality of both legislative and executive acts, as well as make a decision that seems – prima facie – in line with our country’s stated objectives for existing, I would be surprised. Not necessarily shocked, as they are dominated by RWNJs. However, I think they could write a decision that could conceivably be as momentous as that of Marbury v. Madison. Furthermore, from a political perspective, I think such a decision would serve to blunt some of the criticism certain members of the court have been receiving, though it should in no way negate the egregious performances of those who have accepted bribes from wealthy patrons. That should NEVER go away!