Nov 08 2024 39 mins
Guessing the outcomes of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) can be challenging, and, sometimes, the court's decisions leave you scratching your head. Jack and Gonzo discuss our current court’s propensity to rule in favor of popular conservative causes.
If the casinos in Vegas took bets on how SCOTUS were to decide a case, the odds makers probably wouldn't give long odds, because you pretty much know how the justices will rule by their political affiliation. Oh, sure, the justices are supposed to look at each case objectively, but we’re all subject to subliminal inclinations and beliefs that guide us. Even the justices.
Jack and Gonzo take a look at two cases to explain.
The first concerns Marcellus Williams, a black man of humble means, who was convicted of murder. His attorney asked SCOTUS to stay Williams’ execution (legal speak, for temporarily stopping the execution) because of multiple problems with the case. It wasn't a matter of asking the court to overturn Williams’ conviction, just a pause. SCOTUS was asked to intervene so as to avoid the very real possibility that the state of Missouri might execute an innocent man.
Even the prosecuting attorney for the county where Williams was convicted was advocating for a stay, and the family of the person who was murdered stated that Williams should not be executed.
But a majority of justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) couldn't be bothered and didn’t grant the stay. And Williams was executed.
The second case concerns how SCOTUS handled the Trump immunity case. With nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity—literally, not a single word or even an inference about immunity—the court held that presidents have immunity for just about everything they do. Respected constitutional lawyers were stunned.
The court couldn’t be bothered to stay the execution of a black man who grew up in an impoverished and dysfunctional household, but the court went out of its way to protect a man of privilege. The two cases really make you question where the court is.