Well, watching all the pundits, pols, gadflies, and "experts," it has been interesting listening to their opinions about the legal future of a particular orange turd.

Now, one thing each of them seems to gloss over is that the legal system of today is nothing like it was ten years ago.  Precedents, genuine legal philosophy, and integrity are all out the door these days and it seems each conversation about these future legal cases should come with a huge caveat of, "It's 2024 and Trump."

For example, many of the seemingly genuine and non-partisan legal scholars have been pointing out that of the things headed to the US Supreme Ct, the determining factor should be if actions taken before a case reaches them were procedurally correct in courts of law and not that of guilt or innocence. Further, cases like these are about the procedure and if the procedure was constitutional (recall, years ago in a death penalty case Scalia stated that to US Supreme Court, the innocence of a death row inmate was not relevant - (if I recall correctly, the case was a trailer fire where the defendant was convicted on junk science and most likely innocent).

These cases also throw in the Right's hypocrisy when it comes to one of their supposed greatest loves, State's rights.

So, we shall see and to be honest, I'm not optimistic about a US Supreme Ct doing the right thing and following their own precedents (you know, just like Roe V. Wade).