No justice dissented.
Smith had argued: "The public importance of the issues, the imminence of the scheduled trial date and the need for a prompt and final resolution of respondent’s immunity claims counsel in favor of this court’s expedited review at this time."
Trump’s lawyers argued: "Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less."
Posts
32 comments:
One might think that if the prosecutor is so uncertain the law applies as he desires in the case he wants to bring, that he must get a Supreme Court ruling on the question, then perhaps bringing that case to trial might be a bit premature, or incorrect. But the Red Queen says sentence first, then trial, so why not?
Smith victim of his success with DC circuit schedule. Trump has to file opening brief TOMORROW. hearing Jan 9th.
Who do those guys think they are? Don't they know who Jack Smith works for?
What’s the hurry, Jack?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
SCOTUS knows they are being set up and are not taking the bait.
I heard a podcast by a guy who actually studied Soviet law and he said that in the actual textbooks there would be principles like "It's not the law, or even the facts, the focus is the man."
I can't believe we are modeling ourselves on the Soviet Union, but here we are.
So Smith got shot down unanimously by the Supreme Court, just like that time he had his conviction of the Republican Governor of Virginia overturned, but in that case, he managed to get it to stick just long enough to get Hillary's bundler elected.
One wonders that if even the most left-wing "just us"es threw this out, that the memo has come down that this nonsense is hurting more than helping.
No ham today
Supremes have had their say
Now start your mincing Jack
You took 9 in the back
h/t ‘erman’s ‘ermits
"Deliberation?" We don't need no stinking deliberation!--
Colorado Supreme Court (per curiam)
Perhaps SCOTUS has become concerned that Jack Smith is not constitutionally allowed to be in the position of Special Counsel. Best for a lower court to determine that.
Even Readering makes Smith's prosecution of Trump sound like a game of gotcha.
Baby... fetal steps.
I can't believe we are modeling ourselves on the Soviet Union, but here we are.
It's all about power and its corruption. You can call it Communism, Democratic Socialism or any other phrase. It's all about power and control over the unwashed masses.
Jack be quick. Jack be nimble. Jack fumbled with his legal shtick.
It's like the Supreme Court is purposefully helping the Democrats from themselves.
The structural issue is the ease bringing charges from a thousand directions in a politically motivated attack. The most corrupt court out of thousands is pretty corrupt, and they're the fact finder.
Frown harder, Jack Smith, if thats at all possible.
The Supremes don't want to be delegitimized. Unanimity helps to preserve legitimacy.
Good move by the SCOTUS. This lets them find for Trump on insurrection on a split decision without appearing to pile on in support of him in multiple cases.
If the appeals court makes a timely ruling, then that can be appealed to the Supreme Court. If the justices are okay with the ruling — highly likely — then they can decline the appeal and the issue is timely settled. It takes four justices to take up a case. Thomas and Alito are two short of overthrowing the rule of law.
If Trump goes to trial after the election—which he will lose—then it will be an orderly affair and he will eventually go into detention after guilty verdicts are rendered and appeals are exhausted. Everything will work just as it is supposed to.
Trump is not going to win the presidency of the United States if there are a bunch of live criminal indictments out there over the summer and fall of 2024. If by chance Trump were to win, well then the Constitution didn't mean anything anyway. It will have been cancelled by the people of the United States.
I'm so old I remember when you couldn't charge a candidate for crimes and you had to let them face consequences in an election
That was the Hillary standard.
I guess the Democrats were lying when they pushed that claim.
"I guess the Democrats were lying when they pushed that claim."
Your last five words were superfluous, along with the first two.
Just sayin'.
Shorter Rich: WAAAAAAAAA. When democrats lose, the constitution is over!
“Trump is not going to win the presidency of the United States if there are a bunch of live criminal indictments out there over the summer and fall of 2024. If by chance Trump were to win, well then the Constitution didn't mean anything anyway. It will have been cancelled by the people of the United States.”
A symphonic performance art piece utilizing whistling and projection put on by Rich as he ambles past the graveyard!
- Rafe
Dear leftists - piss. up. rope.
I really admire Rich's focus on constitutional justice.
"I'm so old I remember when you couldn't charge a candidate for crimes and you had to let them face consequences in an election
That was the Hillary standard."
--
No reasonable prosecutor blah blah blah.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals will vote against Forever Immunity by January 9. Then the rich friends of conservative SCOTUS justices will begin their celebratory Federalist Society get-togethers.
A few million dollars later, spent here and yon, the Supremes will do a decline to rule against the DC Circuit's opinion. Then, and only then will SCOTUS be faced with writing something about the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling against Trump under Article 3 of the 14th Amendment. No way to bail on this one.
There are arguments for and against fast tracking this, but there is no way a former president is immune from prosecution. No man is above the law is as basic to the US Constitution as the separation of powers or the Bill of Rights.
The appeals court should rule on this quickly and the Supreme Court need not grant any appeal, therein settling the question.
SCOTUS will take the appeal when it is timely to do so, and it will be scheduled for a hearing sometime after October 2024. With this rejection of Smith's plea, the D.C. trial, the only one likely to result in a federal conviction at any point isn't going to happen until 2025 at the earliest.
Sorry, Rich, you get to eat dogshit. If Trump is the nominee, he will at least get to contest the election before any kangeroo court gets to try to put him in jail.
Post a Comment