Immunity to Trump: US Supreme Court skeptical. And 56% of Americans are in opposition to it | EUROtoday

The courtroom's lack of obvious assist for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has led commentators to invest about why the courtroom took up the case within the first place.

Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University Law School, mentioned he was involved in regards to the delay however noticed worth in a call that amounted to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men”.

The doable implications

The courtroom may be extra involved about how its determination may have an effect on future presidencies, Harvard Law School professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare weblog.

But Kermit Roosevelt, a regulation professor on the University of Pennsylvania, mentioned the courtroom ought to by no means have thought-about the case as a result of an ideologically various panel on the federal appeals courtroom in Washington adequately addressed the difficulty.

“If he wanted to take the case, he should have proceeded faster, because now, most likely, this will prevent the process from being completed before the election,” Roosevelt mentioned. “Even Richard Nixon said the American people deserve to know if their president is a crook. The Supreme Court appears to disagree.”