I hope you did not pack up and store your climbing paraphernalia.  Why?  No sooner had we rappelled down from our last trip to the summit of Bullshit Mountain, we need to scale it once more.  And again, our guide is none other than Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch.

To unlock the courthouse doors in the two federal cases–conspiracy to overturn a election and violation of the espionage act–special counsel Jack Smith  petitioned the Court to rule whether Donald Trump was immune from prosecution.  In the hearing that should be focused on those specifics, latest Marvel Universe villain Gorsuch sidestepped the facts enumerated in the petition and tried to broaden the scope of the case before the Justices.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.

Michael Dreeben, representing the special counsel’s office, pushed back, reminding Gorsuch the petition was not about the future.  It applied only to the alleged crimes committed by Donald Trump.  He viewed Gorsuch’s approach so absurd, he prefaced his remarks by pointing out the unprecedented nature of his own argument.

MR. DREEBEN:  And I’m going to say something that I don’t normally say, which is that’s really not involved in this case.  We don’t have bad political motive in that sense.  I would…

Gorsuch in a “I can’t hear you” moment cuts him off and makes it clear he is not interested in why future uses and motive are irrelevant.  However, he does not need Dreeben’s rationale as he admits that Dreeben is correct and literally says “I don’t care,” then reverts back to his claim the case is of monumental importance.

JUSTICE GORSUCH:  I understand that.  I appreciate that, but you also appreciate that we’re writing a rule for the ages.

A rule for the ages?  A decision so important that it sidesteps the facts and laws enumerated in the petitioner’s filing.  Justice Gorsuch, if the future of the presidency rides on the outcome of this case, “a rule for the ages,” why then would the Court take ages to hear it and decide it?  Were you projecting when you said, “I am concerned about future uses of the the criminal law to target political opponents on accusations about their motives.”  Should Americans be concerned about your motives?  Or how you and your “conservative” colleagues are using the protections under criminal law to benefit a candidate for political office?

Jack Smith filed this petition in December 2023.  Do not tell us you could not have immediately granted certiorari.  The Constitution gives Congress the right to determine when the Supreme Court can invoke original jurisdiction.

ARTICLE III, Section 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (Emphasis added.)

Equally important, the Supreme Court has affirmed its own right to original jurisdiction even in cases where it has chosen not to employ it e.g. Missouri v. Holland (1920) where the Court reserved the right but declared “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly.”  In Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1982), the Court suggested the criterion for such sparing use should be “claims that are of sufficient seriousness and dignity and resolution by the Judiciary is of substantial concern.”  Yet Gorsuch and his colleagues found what he describes as “a case for the ages” does not meet that test.

Your honor, we the people object.  According to a recent Politico poll, more that 70 percent of Americans object.  Either this case is truly “one for the ages” and needs to be resolved, to famously quote the Court, WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.  Or it is limited as Jack Smith’s team suggests and was adequately resolved by the Court of Appeals of the D.C. Circuit.  A third path suggests some ulterior motive that is not grounded in the facts nor the law.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP