The law hangs by a thread

CNN reports that the USSC has just barely decided that the New York state court can sentence DJT for his 34 felonies:

Donald Trump can be sentenced Friday in hush money case, 

Supreme Court says in 5-4 ruling

The high court on Thursday rejected Trump’s emergency request to delay the proceeding, setting the stage for him to be sentenced just days before he is inaugurated on January 20 for a second term.

Four conservative justices – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – said they would have granted Trump’s request. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court’s three liberals to side against Trump.  

In a brief, one-paragraph statement, the court said that some of Trump’s concerns could be handled “in the ordinary course on appeal.” The court also reasoned that the burden sentencing would impose on Trump’s responsibilities is “relatively insubstantial” in light of the trial court’s stated intent to impose no penalty. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the application.

After his sentencing today, DJT has 30 days to appeal in New York. He can argue the convictions should be reversed because, e.g., there was political bias, DJT's fraud caused no harm, the law he was charged under was misinterpreted or unconstitutionally too ambiguous, the statute of limitations had run on some of the instances of DJT's fraud, etc. He has plenty of grounds for an appeal in NY state courts. 

In my opinion however, this USSC decision should have been a no-brainer, 9-0 vote against DJT. The NY lawsuit was about DJT's crimes committed in NY before he was in office. It had nothing to do with his immunity for crimes committed while in office. But with six radical right authoritarian Republican judges sitting on the bench, all bets are off when it comes to elites and especially DJT breaking laws and getting away with it. 

Four of the six authoritarians would have subverted the rule of law and simply let DJT off with no sentencing for whatever reason(s), or no reason if they could not make one up. My guess is the four wanted to toss out the NY lawsuit in its entirety. As it is, the judge in NY will impose no penalty, but even that non-slap on the wrist was too much for the tyrant gonnabe, or at least wannabe. 

This is how close to legal Armageddon our democracy and rule of law are.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) poses an interesting question about the rule of law:

Will Americans Care if Trump Brings a Wrecking Ball to the Rule of Law?

During Trump's first term, the Justice Department became a focal point of his efforts to transform the federal government into a personal plaything. It was a tempting target for an aspiring autocrat. As the agency responsible for enforcing federal law, it is the arm of the state that most directly wields control over the freedom of those within its jurisdiction.

But the post-Watergate structures developed to shield the department from presidential influence operate largely on the level of norms, not legal restrictions. That leaves the president with a great deal of power to abuse his authority if he wants. And Mr. Trump did, directing the Justice Department to harass his enemies.

Early in the Jan. 6 investigation, Mr. Garland announced the department’s commitment to the principle that “there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.” How well does that claim hold up today, with Mr. Trump having slipped free of the charges against him precisely because of his wealth and power?

It is worth considering why voters seem to care so little about these values, such that Mr. Trump’s commitment to destroying the independence and integrity of law enforcement — or at least downgrading it — was not a deal-breaker for much of the electorate.

For the average person not steeped in Justice Department traditions, the first Trump administration’s model of law enforcement as a system of patronage — with preferential treatment apparently given to allies of the president — might seem appealing when compared with a plodding, opaque, rule-bound bureaucracy that nevertheless reliably manages to advantage those in power.

Plodding, opaque and reliably serving those in power is spot on. Justice delayed for DJT has turned out to be justice completely denied. This outcome is no surprise at all to some of us. None at all. That is just what predictably happens when the rule law fails. We really do have a two-tiered justice system, one for the rich or powerful elites and one for the rest of us. So should anyone care if DJT and MAGA trash the rule of law and they go with the rule of the tyrant-kleptocrat and his cronies?