• @litchralee
    link
    English
    11
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s more that this claim of immunity causes a pause in the proceedings. My understanding is that there are many ways to pause different sorts of proceedings, such as insanity in a criminal trial and bankruptcy in a civil trial. In these two cases, though, once the issue has passed, the trial starts again where it was.

    However, for pauses caused by claims of immunity or anti-SLAPP hearings, the result of those hearings could cause the trial to become moot, meaning the proceeding would immediately end. And that’s why there’s a pause in the first place.

    In that sense, there is no circumnavigation because if immunity does apply, the trial wouldn’t matter. And if it doesn’t apply, the trial would proceed. Judicially, there is no drawback, but politically, burning down the clock may be a goal of the defense, as the primary and general elections draw closer.

    It is very tempting to dismiss seemingly frivolous issues out of hand, and the judge could have done that. But presidential immunity has been a gray legal area – see Nixon presidency – such that judicial confidence isn’t fully established. In a way, the judge is saying “ok, show me what you’ve got” knowing that proof of immunity is an uphill battle, waiting for the defense to fall flat.