We're waiting for the SC to decide whether there are 'official acts' in the indictment which deserve immunity
...but they won't talk about evidence in the case in front of them, or allow the DOJ attorney or Jack Smith to argue the specifics of the prosecution at hand.
How do the justices determine what's an official act without looking at the evidence, or at least allowing some part of the facts in this case to be presented to them before making these decisions?
It's a farce for the Court to present themselves as the ultimate arbiter of what was an official action by Trump without essentially serving as a substitute for the People, who are represented by a judge and jury who would hear and adjudicate ALL of the evidence and testimony.
It may be that the Court will decide to send it back to trial with jury instructions and other guidance for the presiding judge making the distinctions they seem to think are so important, especially after agreement on both sides that there are several clearly private acts being charged.
But in the Robert's court's view, they are the ultimate word on the law, certainly not the lowly federal judges and juries who do the work of actually facing the facts in prosecutions and deciding matters of law everyday with an alacrity this Supreme Court hasn't yet demonstrated in any action they've undertaken which doesn't benefit Trump.
They are in a quandary of their own making by taking this appeal, and the reason these issues of immunity are so hard for them - outside of the efforts of more than a couple of the justices to downplay the insurrection and conjure up innocuous scenarios where Donald Trump was leading a peaceful protest - is that they are institutionally ill-equipped to decide these issues outside of the squirrelly sense of self-preservation rattling around in their own heads.
What's even more disturbing is that any evidence that they're wrong about the issues in this case that they arbitrarily decide will be obscured for as long as they refuse to allow the trial to continue. It's not as if they can't look at the end of the prosecution for whatever they believe is immune and act on that complete record of charges and courtroom generated evidence.
Is it weird to anyone else that these wasn't one charge in the indictment before them mentioned or discussed by any justice?
= new reply since forum marked as read
but nevertheless I am beginning to despair, at least a little. The entire court seemed to be missing the most salient issues . Of course the heritage judges were a million times worse, but I thought the liberals also gave too much credence to the idea that frivolous indictments might happen in the future. 
