From JC

COURTWATCH: The Supreme Court concluded its week with a cliffhanger episode that was nearly as aggravating as the way the Sopranos’ final episode cut to black in the middle of spaghetti dinner. Moving with the speed and alacrity of a centenarian tortoise, with 20 case decisions to go, and only a week left, the Court parsimoniously provided only five of the least interesting decisions yesterday. It leaves us hanging with 15 of the biggest still in the queue. I hope the Supremes are enjoying themselves.

The truth is, the Justices know full well that everyone is waiting to pounce on their Trump Immunity Decision. One paper called the expected order “certainly one of the most highly anticipated decisions in U.S. history.”

The Court knows its decision, unless they pull a rabbit-suit-wearing Alvin Bragg out of a hat — good luck — will trigger a nuclear fireball of polemic controversy, no matter what they do. Or, perish the thought, what they don’t do.

How much immunity should Presidents get? It’s an insanely difficult question, fraught with future consequence. But after closely observing the farcical fractured fairy tale of Fani “Gimme a G” Willis and the Love Bunnies, and having endured Stalinesque Judge Engoran’s appalling Soviet show trial, I’m leaning toward maximum immunity.

It has become painfully obvious to the feeblest intelligence that Presidents can’t get a fair trial. Or, at least half the country will never believe it was a fair trial, which is like spraying hydrochloric acid all over the Nation’s trust in our legal system.

Lost trust is only one issue. All the problems with blithely pretending partisan politics can be set aside and Presidents can magically get a fair trial using the ordinary jury system could fill a hardbound, two-volume edition of How To Start A Civil War for Dummies, Parts I and II.

As the clock runs out on this blockbuster issue, Democrats are coming unglued. The headlines over the last couple weeks were stuffed with the seminal democrat issue of packing the Supreme Court — a thinly veiled threat to punish the Court if it dares immunize President Trump.

And, after yesterday’s non-event, the suspense is cracking democrats’ brains. E.g., the Daily Beast:

Or, the New York Times (op-ed):

The reason the democrats are so het up is simple. If the Court were going to make a simple, straightforward ruling allowing the Trump trials to keep trundling down the Manhattan tracks toward the jailhouse, it seems like there would be no reason for the Court to take so long to rule. That’s a giant assumption with no basis in reality, since there could be lots of other explanations for the delay. But this is where we are.

On top of that, democrats are also anxious to end Trump’s appeals, so the former President can be sentenced to jail before November. The longer it takes for the decision to come out, the less time there will be to speed-walk Trump’s conviction through the New York Court system.

Unlike the end of the Sopranos, which remains a baffling mystery, we’ll soon know whether Tony ever finished his chicken cacciatore or ate an assassin’s bullet. Assuming the Court makes a real ruling, the world will be forever changed, one way or the other, whether it’s lead or chicken. But at least we won’t be left staring dumbfounded at the TV screen. Probably.

And so, gnawing its fingernails, the Nation waits to watch the blockbuster final episode of The Trumps.

???????? President Trump’s immunity problem isn’t the only high-stakes, historic Supreme Court game in town. Yesterday, the Associated Press ran a story headlined, What’s left for the Supreme Court to decide? Here’s the list.

Consider the jaw-dropping implications of this awe-inspiring list of the Court’s remaining big issue cases:

The Trump Immunity Decision, discussed above.

The Fischer case on whether January 6th defendants were creatively over-charged under an irrelevant document-shredding law.

The DOJ’s challenge to an Idaho anti-abortion law limiting emergency abortions.

A case on whether banning bums from sleeping on San Fransisco’s streets constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment,” absent sufficient free government housing.

A potentially historic decision pruning back the Chevron doctrine, limiting Executive Branch agency powers to interpret ambiguous laws without judicial oversight.

A challenge to Florida and Texas laws banning social media companies from censoring political opinions.

The “Twitter Files” case, on whether the federal government illegally coerced social media platforms to censor conservative viewpoints.

A case on whether the Sackler family can get personal legal releases in the Purdue Pharma opioid settlement.

A case on whether SEC financial crime charges deserve a jury trial in a courtroom, or serious convictions can be solely by agency action.

All these controversial decisions are expected next week. You can see why the Court is holding its cards close and doling out its orders with glacial slowness. The implications are potentially monumental, primed to reshape the legal and political landscape for a generation. It’s no understatement to say the country could look significantly different by this time next week.

So, get ready.