An interesting thread going through the individual steps/times since last August's indictment, serving as a counterargument to the "slow-walking" claim.
Sorry it's on X...I'm sure there will be plenty of articles written in the coming days that may bring more clarity.
Judgment. Which is what Jack Smith requested and the Court denied.
Per Supreme Court Rule
"A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending
in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is en-
tered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that
the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify
deviation from normal appellate practice and to require im-
mediate determination in this Court.
The Court used this proceedure in several cases in recent years. The Court used the process to decide the student loan debt forgiveness case and the challenge against Biden's eviction moratorium.
I think no matter what side of the aisle you sit on the decision whether or not the former President is entitled to immunity for his actions related to 1/6 and the Mar A Lago documents is at least as imperative as the student loan and eviction cases particularly given the impact on the election.
Why a delay of almost two months is appropriate is beyond me and appears to support the "delay - delay - delay" strategy rather than some theoretical pursuit of getting it right.
On the bright side, the hemorrhage of money for legal fees will only increase ...
commentator last night discussng the idea in my post above.
The Court used its power to skip the Appellate Court under a procedure for cases "such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require im-
mediate determination in this Court.".
The most recent two examples are the Student Loan Forgiveess and Eviction Moratorium cases. Do you think the immunity decision is any less public importance than those? I obviously do not.
I have not reached the point of thinking the Court did this to help Trump but it is hard to see a justification for the different decisions.
to try and strike a balance between rushing the process as quickly as possible and still providing sufficient time to prepare the arguments.
That said, I am not an attorney and I defer to the legal scholars.
I am not sympathetic to Trump's case at all, in case there is any confusion.
should have taken the case when Jack Smith requested it is not as crazy as many seem to think it is. I suspect many posters who think it would have been wrong to take the case then had no issue when it was done for student debt and evictions.
It is one more example of the damage Trump has done to our politics by destroying the trust in all institutions.
'Judge Chutkan postponed Trump's election interference trial until presidential immunity question is resolved' ,February 02, 2024
I'm trying to follow logic below about "this should have been addressed in January." The last status was that the question of immunity went up on appeal this month, Trump lost that question on February 6th, petitioned for cert, and here we are?
Whence January?
The Supreme Court refused to hear this question in December and instead sent it to the court of appeals.
Manner. Following process is a hallmark of our system. Most people thought that smith was trying a Hail Mary back in January, not just trumpies. As someone else posted below, you’re probably going to be happy with the ultimate outcome. The system will hold. My fearless prediction: the Court will conclude he can’t be kicked off the ballot by Colorado or Maine. And that he doesn’t have absolute immunity. And then we get to decide in November.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like a request was made Dec 8, stay ordered on Dec 9, case argued Dec 11, and decision made Dec 12.
Or is that singularly unique?
This will delay the case until this summer at the earliest neither smith trial is happening until November mark my words and it will because of this decision.
Everything that has happened since the indictment has proceeded at a high expedited pace at each level of the court system, especially as compared to criminal matters of comparable complexity and public importance.
the time to indict.
Obviously difficult to remember now what we knew and when we knew it so I dont remember waht eveidence became public when that triggered the appointment. Cerainly many on the left have criticized Garland over this matter and others. Smith actually moved pretty quickly once appointed. He was named in November 22 and I think the indciitments in the Mar A Lago case came in June. The 1/6 indictments I think came on August 1. For a wide ranging conspriacy where people are not volunteering evidence that time frame isnt bad.
What I had not considered before now is whether the 1/6 case ever gets brought if Trump does not screw around with the documents.
And we should be grateful for the process. Respectfully, I don’t think it’s right to think of this as a win for trump. The issues are so important that SCOTUS needs to decide them, for the good of our democracy. The rule of law will prevail and the system will continue to work. It’s not a good idea to keep him off the ballot or make him a martyr with a conviction on a novel legal question. Trust the voters.
Trump's argument is frivolous, and would have been considered laughable at any time before he asserted it. It certainly would have been news to Gerald Ford, who blew up his re-election campaign before it began by pardoning Nixon, or to Bill Clinton, who surrendered his law license on his last day in office as part of a deal to avoid indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice.
If the issues are obviously "so important that SCOTUS needs to decide them," simply because a former president is involved, and there was no circumstance in which SCOTUS would decline to hear the case, then they should have taken it when Smith requested it in December.
said this. Said the decision by the DC Circuit was sound reasoning and the Court did not "need" to take the case. If the idea is they need to have this settled before the trial they should be expediting the case to allow for the trial to still take place.
There was not a final ruling in any court in December and and an appellate court was hearing the same issue. Furthermore, it is a bit odd for the non asserting party to request cert on a defense. Standing comes to mind.
And you keep saying the court is not expediting this. Did you read the order? SEems pretty damned expedited. Writing those briefs is going to burn some hours and coffee.
DC Circuit the briefs should be pretty well in order without much additional work. I guess there could be some slight changes to the arguments based upon the Appellate Court decision but cant imagine it will change their argument that much.
I guess it somewhat depends on how long they take to rule. With obvious caveat that I expect them to affirm the appelate court it might not be as bad if they rule quickly and the trial can still take place.
For the trial after this side show is over. It is necessary to hear this. Trump may lose and one day we have a crazier sob in charge. Or trump may win and avoid prosecution. Either way I’m ok with how this has played out. It has all gone down fairly promptly following the case history. If smith got cert granted in December I think that would have played into trumps hands: “look they have evem corrupted the Supreme Court. Why is smith trying to avoid the appellate court. Blah blah blah”
He’ll lose. He’ll probably just run to Russia.
Court did this to help him. There is a case to be made that a well reasoned decision by the Appellate Court is sufficient in most cases so that without a conflict in the circuits the case should be left alone. Obviously they may feel this is an important enough case the Court needs to weigh in.
It is all fine if they rule quickly after the hearing. The stay prohibits anything from being done inthe meantime so if he loses it will take some time to get back up tp speed. I think the prior indications were 4-6 weeks for the prosecution after Jury selection. Of course it will be over the summer so there will always be the I have a family vacations scheduled issue to deal with.
I think DOJ has a rule about political trials / announcements of politicians around elections. I dont remember exaclty what it is but 90 days sticks in my mind. Even assuming it is 60 days that is the beginning of September which means to try the case before the election the Court likely needs to issue a decision by the miiddle of May at the latest. That assumes a month to get the case ready and 2.5 months to pick a jury and try the case.
The time frame is tight but not impossible. Honestly Haley and any Republicans who throught a conviction would doom Trump's campaging should probably be more upset.
There is a non negligible chance that Trump regains the Presidency. If he does, he might blather on about his supposed immunity because "the supreme court, that supreme law of the land, holds our nation together folks. Very good justices. I appointed three of them you know... they didn't rule. That court in the Swamp... they ruled.. unjustly I might add... you know my wife..."
By granting cert and ruling they will take that risk off the table. Then the buffoon will go to trial and he will likely abscond. Fin.
Then there will another case for the Supreme Court to hear.
Frankly, I think we should lean into the "freedom" side of our ideals a bit more, and we could use a little less "democracy"
ago, for what good it did.
Maybe we'll get lucky and he celebrates clinching the nomination by getting 24 hookers and has a heart attack and dies trying to impress them with his cocksmanship, and a sense of normalcy can start to return.
Seems about the only way out at this point.
I’d like to see how this goes. Not really sure the issues in the case are on Trump’s side. I think the court is trying to deal with all the issues as to whether he can be the nominee. You might like their conclusion.
They should have fucking heard it in January when the special prosecutor asked them. The fucking court has now become political and this is a sad day for this country. The bastard is going to delay both his trials until after the election and the Supreme Court is allowing it to happen. Next time the democrats try to pack the court I’m not going to fucking complain. Fuck them, we have taken another step forward to losing our republic.
Maybe it plays out as you opine. Maybe the Supremes just want to slam the door on the bullshit.
They could have heard it in January if they felt they had to rule but they didn’t, they sent it to the court of appeals. Hearing this now only allows Trump to get what he wants.
Is that if the Supremes rule that Presidents have total immunity, Biden can have a SEAL team assassinate Trump, and coast to victory.
This move is a craven attempt to help an insurrectionist by the highest court in the land. I have no doubt they will deny him, but it doesn’t matter they still gave him the fucking victory. Cowards.
He's almost assuredly going to lose. It's a delay tactic which is unfortunately working.
In other news, in the case of Alumni v Dillon, the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that Alumni sucks.
Why the expletives? Why are you pissed? Isn’t this actually what you want? This is an expedited result rather than Trump being able to take this to an appellate court and the. Asking the Supreme Court to grant cert which would most certainly have gone past the November election date? Relax Sprack, you’re losing your cool.
I’m no lawyer, but from everything everywhere that I’ve read I don’t think you have that right at all. If they didn’t grant cert it would be the end of it and the trial could be scheduled.
If it was first headed to the appellate court then off to whether the Supreme Court does or doesn’t grant cert. most times, they let the case ‘ripen’ before taking up a case or failing to grant cert. so you’re sort of right and sort of wrong. Now I’m sure you’ll have something else to say about this, but I’m done. Cheers
around here, I suggest you stop trying to be fair and balanced in the image of past American statesmen. Could have packed the court, then done an endzone dance, like the F-ing republicans. Which is it Miss Manners or Political Party? You know how to MAKE the reservation, just not how to HOLD the reservation. Now I'm ashamed to be a Democrat!! Where do I go next? I guess I have an inside route to the Know Nothings.
...which was reported thus by the press, I wonder if the Court wants to clarify the difference between immunity from civil actions and immunity from criminal actions.
Here is what SCOTUS is apparently considering:
"Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."
Here's a link to Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Here are some snippets from the Nixon v. Fitzgerald decision:
"Although the Court of Appeals had previously ruled in another case that the President was not entitled to absolute immunity, this Court had never so held."
"Petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."
"The President's absolute immunity is a functionally mandated incident of his unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by the Nation's history. Because of the singular importance of the President's duties, diversion of his energies by concern with private lawsuits would raise unique risks to the effective functioning of government. While the separation of powers doctrine does not bar every exercise of jurisdiction over the President, a court, before exercising jurisdiction, must balance the constitutional weight of the interest to be served against the dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. The exercise of jurisdiction is not warranted in the case of merely private suits for damages based on a President's official acts."
"The President's absolute immunity extends to all acts within the "outer perimeter" of his duties of office."
"A rule of absolute immunity for the President does not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against his misconduct. There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment, as well as the deterrent effects of constant scrutiny by the press and vigilant oversight by Congress. Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature."
****************
Now, as if that's not enough, here's United States v. Nixon. And here are snippets:
"Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."
"However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide."
"The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence."
******
I suppose SCOTUS could clarify that if POTUS was acting within is office, he's immune; if he wasn't, he's not. But didn't the Court of Appeals already say that?
Point to get resolved.
Why is this taking place in April when it was very recently argued? Maybe some justices have nice vacations planned and don't want to reschedule. I'm guessing zero chance any justice recuses.
Not to bang the drum on he lost the popular vote... or that analysis shows that roughly 107k votes swang the election in 3 states... but damn.
And think it might be. But over the last 3 terms, the court has really divided into 3 groups of 3. You have the liberals, the institutionalist conservatives (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett), and the 3 consequences be damned conservatives (Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas). Of course these aren’t hard and fast groupings (see Gorsuch in Bostock), but they’ve tended to stick together. I don’t think anyone in the first 2 groups will rule in Trump’s favor. I hope the third group comes along as well, and if I had to bet on it I’d say they will, but we’ll see.
current decision. Hearing in late April, decision by end of June? We know the Court can accelerate things -- Bush v Gore took almost no time.
The court hasn't exactly been earning our trust lately with unreported, excessive gifts and lack of recusals.
Hasn't the Trump political experience been a complete subversion of norms and expectations?
I’d bet on 9-0 or 7-2.
And I don't see why it matters who appointed them, it's not like he can reach out and have them removed.
Think about how many judges nominated by (R) Presidents ruled against conservative positions in the past.
"""
The court’s brief order said the court will decide this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
"""
What part of this is official acts? The conduct Trump is accused of was way outside any immunity for official acts the Constitution might/does confer.
1. They took the case because they think it is important they affirm the appellate court decision before the trial in order to remove the abilty of Trump to argue it is going to be overturned on appeal. I think affirming the appellate court would do the same but they may feel differently.
2. The thing the appellate court ruled incorrectly and intend to overturn the decisoin and give Trump the get out of free card he seeks.
I guess there is a third possibility which would be they are delaying it to avoid the trial happening before the election which is essentially a win for Trump. If they uphold the appellate court decision without signiifciant changes, granting cert will have been a mistake in my opinion.
trial before the election.
Perhaps I’m too optimistic that the ruling will confirm the lower court and settle its scope. Robert’s may also be looking for a case to combat recent criticism
The fact that they refused and are now hearing it makes them look like they are allowing Donald Trump to delay this trial. It’s bullshit.