The Supreme Court's 'no' to Trump was dangerously close to 'yes' - Marcus, WaPo

We should be more alarmed than grateful that the Supreme Court let the sentencing of Donald Trump go forward. The fact that there were four justices prepared to block the proceeding bodes ill for the high court’s willingness to act as a check on Trump once he returns to office. This was effectively a non-sentence: The judge imposed no jail time, no fine, no conditions of probation. In deference to his status as president-elect, Trump wasn’t even required to turn up in person, as would anyone else convicted of 34 felony counts.

(snip)

But as the five-justice majority noted in its brief order rejecting Trump’s claims: “First, the alleged evidentiary violations at President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose a sentence of ‘unconditional discharge’ after a brief virtual hearing.” A chilling question: What would have happened if the judge hadn’t announced his intention to impose the wrist-slappiest possible sentence?

The next part of the court’s order was even more chilling: “Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.” In other words, two of Trump’s most loyal — most reflexive — defenders, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., and two of his three nominees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, would have taken the extraordinary step of ordering the New York judge, Juan Merchan, not to proceed.

(snip)

Barrett, who is being decried by Trump’s MAGA allies as a traitor and worse, has been a welcome surprise for her independence and intellectual honesty. In several significant cases last year — the immunity ruling, the scope of the constitutional disqualification provision and the reach of an obstruction statute used to charge some Jan. 6 defendants — she broke from Roberts and the other conservative justices.

(snip)

That does not provide much hope about what will happen when Trump’s lawyers, pivoting from representing him personally to arguing on behalf of the United States, make their next appearance before the high court.

https://wapo.st/40y0GlB

(free)