I have no idea anymore whether SCOTUS believes in rule of law or if they're in the bag for Trump. I shouldn't even have to ask such a thing but here we are in this country.
SCOTUS must stop allowing Trump to sidestep our Constitution.
If the Judges think they can pull a “Taney” ruling over our eyes today, they are barking-up the wrong tree.
If Trump’s MAGA mob had attacked SCOTUS’s building on January 6, 2021, these Judges might have a whole different take on what the indicted former president is doing: ducking and hiding.
Wouldn’t SCOTUS be able to give a report a page or 2( to deny cert. lift the stay and state why? ) in thr halls of legislation isn’t this “ putting your stamp on it?” WITHOUT having to delay court proceedings?
This way u rule, do so w a fast pace, but still weigh in if it’s a deal where u want to look back and say u ruled?
“the Special Counsel’s latest filing raises a compelling inference of a political motive—the motivation to influence the 2024 Presidential election by bringing the leading Republican candidate to trial before November 5, 2024”
If they actually grant a stay & this thing is delayed for months (March argument likely means an opinion at best in April), liberals should think about not signing on to any bogus 14A, sec. 3 argument. There is a mixture of predictions with some legal pundits thinking there is a reasonable chance of them granting it. Chris Geidner per a comment seems doubtful. They surely should not.
I'm tired of "this is partisan bs" analysis (quite justified) of Trump legal briefs which in the long run are at least a limited win (delay delay delay). It's time. Trump trials (New York City and D.C. most likely) should begin. And, the partisan judge confirmed after the election (mid-November 2020) in Florida should be off the case. Well, maybe the first part actually will happen.
Granting the office of president complete immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while president is a repugnant thought; it would be a repugnant ruling; it would lead to lawlessness in the land.
The DC Circuit blew off the explicitness collateral order statement for claims of immunity prosecution and devoted a lot of time explaining why an opinion of the Court shouldn't be parsed like positive law. They decided to entertain Trump's not very well advanced claim of implicit immunity to see if it could be discerned as an emanation of a penumbra of some more definite part of the law.
It could be argued either way, but so far really the only people doing the argument are the DC panel. If this were not a Trump case, I could see the Court reaching down to lay hands on the rationale below or to correct it. But that really gets subsumed under the scramble to get out of the way of the train wreck that we are headed to. Maybe the voters will do the right thing and it won't be our fault?
Two max, if even that. I commented weeks ago that SCOTUS is done with tRump, having previously ruled against his "immunity" claims in re: Congressional subpoena for his taxes...but criminal liability? Slam dunk, he goes to trial sooner rather than later.
Oh I hope so. What worries me is this notion that holding him legally accountable for his actions (just like any other citizen) somehow disenfranchises half the country.
I have no idea anymore whether SCOTUS believes in rule of law or if they're in the bag for Trump. I shouldn't even have to ask such a thing but here we are in this country.
Why isn't this a wholly frivolous claim? Does a rationale for it exist somewhere, somehow?
SCOTUS must stop allowing Trump to sidestep our Constitution.
If the Judges think they can pull a “Taney” ruling over our eyes today, they are barking-up the wrong tree.
If Trump’s MAGA mob had attacked SCOTUS’s building on January 6, 2021, these Judges might have a whole different take on what the indicted former president is doing: ducking and hiding.
Wouldn’t SCOTUS be able to give a report a page or 2( to deny cert. lift the stay and state why? ) in thr halls of legislation isn’t this “ putting your stamp on it?” WITHOUT having to delay court proceedings?
This way u rule, do so w a fast pace, but still weigh in if it’s a deal where u want to look back and say u ruled?
Wud t tbis be win, win?
Thank you for explaining in plan English.
SCOTUS again faces the verdict of history. More than DJT is on trial here.
The Trump filing has a sort of rage quit quality to it.
“the Special Counsel’s latest filing raises a compelling inference of a political motive—the motivation to influence the 2024 Presidential election by bringing the leading Republican candidate to trial before November 5, 2024”
If this wasn’t so sad it would be hysterical 😂😢😂
If they actually grant a stay & this thing is delayed for months (March argument likely means an opinion at best in April), liberals should think about not signing on to any bogus 14A, sec. 3 argument. There is a mixture of predictions with some legal pundits thinking there is a reasonable chance of them granting it. Chris Geidner per a comment seems doubtful. They surely should not.
I'm tired of "this is partisan bs" analysis (quite justified) of Trump legal briefs which in the long run are at least a limited win (delay delay delay). It's time. Trump trials (New York City and D.C. most likely) should begin. And, the partisan judge confirmed after the election (mid-November 2020) in Florida should be off the case. Well, maybe the first part actually will happen.
Granting the office of president complete immunity from prosecution for criminal acts committed while president is a repugnant thought; it would be a repugnant ruling; it would lead to lawlessness in the land.
Thanks for including Smith’s court filing. I was having a hard time locating it. I’m keeping all these court filings in my iBooks.
The DC Circuit blew off the explicitness collateral order statement for claims of immunity prosecution and devoted a lot of time explaining why an opinion of the Court shouldn't be parsed like positive law. They decided to entertain Trump's not very well advanced claim of implicit immunity to see if it could be discerned as an emanation of a penumbra of some more definite part of the law.
It could be argued either way, but so far really the only people doing the argument are the DC panel. If this were not a Trump case, I could see the Court reaching down to lay hands on the rationale below or to correct it. But that really gets subsumed under the scramble to get out of the way of the train wreck that we are headed to. Maybe the voters will do the right thing and it won't be our fault?
My crystal ball is broken. I discuss it more https://the-oracle-of-technocrat.ghost.io/reply-brief-of-the-united-states-in-the-immunity-case/
Seems highly likely there are 4 votes for cert—Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh. That leaves 5, 2 of whom are plausible to grant the stay. Not great.
I don’t know of many who agree with that assessment. I don’t. Certainly not “highly likely.”
You have more faith than I do. Maybe I’m still having PTSD from 2000. I hope you’re right.
I hope you're right too.
Two max, if even that. I commented weeks ago that SCOTUS is done with tRump, having previously ruled against his "immunity" claims in re: Congressional subpoena for his taxes...but criminal liability? Slam dunk, he goes to trial sooner rather than later.
Oh I hope so. What worries me is this notion that holding him legally accountable for his actions (just like any other citizen) somehow disenfranchises half the country.