The court's judgment sets up a likely quick trip to the Supreme Court if Trump wants to continue arguing that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution.
I don't see why SCOTUS would take the case, other than trying to give trump yet another mulligan. The lower courts have decisively ruled on the issues and there doesn't seem to be any doubt or question whatsoever about where the Constitution or precedent stand on any of it.
"Every president faces difficult decisions...whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them"
Touché!
And I wonder - as you do, Chris - whether this decision - its rigor, its unanimity - will consciously or otherwise play into Thursday's §3 DQ hearing, and/or deliberations following arguments...hard to believe that it won't, especially the three-judge opinion's recitation of tRump's attempts to unconstitutionally and criminally prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly-elected successor, Joe Biden, all neatly and comprehensively stated in the opinion.
And in the three-judge opinion, tRump WAS referred to as an "officer", further burying the §3 DQ claim that a president is *not* an officer for the purposes of §3 categories to whom to assign as an oath-taking officer.
I noticed this as well, they make this point without making it directly MULTIPLE times. And in some cases using historical record to make that point. Gotta love when they also pull out a dictionary from 1773 to make a single definition point.
A job well done, IMO. Deadlines spur action, and while the panel had no deadline to issue its opinion, it would appear it decided it should be released no later than today given the Supreme Court hearing in Trump v Anderson scheduled for Thursday.
It takes four to hear an appeal, right? So if Thomas and Alito couldn't convince two other justices to take up the case, the supreme court could let this stand with no further action, correct? To me it seems like a very good way for SCOTUS to give itself cover without the conservative judges having to explicitly come out and make pronouncements. But then that's based on my theory that SCOTUS' ultimate goal is to pass the buck.
I'm wondering if the delay was in part a mulling over of the best way to deal with the mandate issue. But it also may be attention to getting everything RIGHT so that even if cert is granted, it will be hard to find a way for the supremes to wiggle out of the reasoning and authority. Anyway, glad of the result.
If an ex president lacks this immunity, a political candidate sure as hell doesn't have it.
I love trump's argument about subjecting presidents to political persecution through post-presidential trials. It is just a sterling example of projection of his own plans onto everyone else.
MSNBC, give Chris a guest slot, a show or an entire hour please! For example why is Mrs Greenspan a talker for Thursdays SCOTUS hearing? What can she possibly lend to the proceeding?
I'm working today and couldn't read Second District Appellate 57 page opinion. Paid subscription was easy choice to receive your expert analysis after your careful reading of the courts decision. Judgment Affirmed never sounded so good.
I don't see why SCOTUS would take the case, other than trying to give trump yet another mulligan. The lower courts have decisively ruled on the issues and there doesn't seem to be any doubt or question whatsoever about where the Constitution or precedent stand on any of it.
"Every president faces difficult decisions...whether to intentionally commit a federal crime should not be one of them"
Touché!
And I wonder - as you do, Chris - whether this decision - its rigor, its unanimity - will consciously or otherwise play into Thursday's §3 DQ hearing, and/or deliberations following arguments...hard to believe that it won't, especially the three-judge opinion's recitation of tRump's attempts to unconstitutionally and criminally prevent the peaceful transfer of power to the duly-elected successor, Joe Biden, all neatly and comprehensively stated in the opinion.
And in the three-judge opinion, tRump WAS referred to as an "officer", further burying the §3 DQ claim that a president is *not* an officer for the purposes of §3 categories to whom to assign as an oath-taking officer.
I noticed this as well, they make this point without making it directly MULTIPLE times. And in some cases using historical record to make that point. Gotta love when they also pull out a dictionary from 1773 to make a single definition point.
A job well done, IMO. Deadlines spur action, and while the panel had no deadline to issue its opinion, it would appear it decided it should be released no later than today given the Supreme Court hearing in Trump v Anderson scheduled for Thursday.
It takes four to hear an appeal, right? So if Thomas and Alito couldn't convince two other justices to take up the case, the supreme court could let this stand with no further action, correct? To me it seems like a very good way for SCOTUS to give itself cover without the conservative judges having to explicitly come out and make pronouncements. But then that's based on my theory that SCOTUS' ultimate goal is to pass the buck.
I just added a section on this. Check it out.
Feb. 12 is Lincoln's birthday. In an early speech, he voiced the importance of following the law.
Grateful as always for the work Chris puts into his analysis! I’ve shared it more than once.
I'm wondering if the delay was in part a mulling over of the best way to deal with the mandate issue. But it also may be attention to getting everything RIGHT so that even if cert is granted, it will be hard to find a way for the supremes to wiggle out of the reasoning and authority. Anyway, glad of the result.
If an ex president lacks this immunity, a political candidate sure as hell doesn't have it.
I love trump's argument about subjecting presidents to political persecution through post-presidential trials. It is just a sterling example of projection of his own plans onto everyone else.
Best analysis anywhere in the web.
MSNBC, give Chris a guest slot, a show or an entire hour please! For example why is Mrs Greenspan a talker for Thursdays SCOTUS hearing? What can she possibly lend to the proceeding?
I second that! Chris always reveals the critical aspects of the cases he analyzes. Respect!
Thanks, all!
Thank you, Chris. I shouted out YES! When I got the alert
his immunity had been denied and have been waiting for your post all day.
A good day for Justice, the Constitution and Jack Smith.
Frogs boiling at Mar-a-Lago.
But *Judge* Cannon resolutely stands as his firewall...but in time her incompetence may prove irrelevant as the DC case gets greenlighted.
More frogs will boil in FL. 👍
Chris,
I'm working today and couldn't read Second District Appellate 57 page opinion. Paid subscription was easy choice to receive your expert analysis after your careful reading of the courts decision. Judgment Affirmed never sounded so good.
Great explanation.
Thank you.
It shouldn’t have taken this long to issue the judicial equivalent of “Are you shittin’ me?”