Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute
The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – a move that will likely delay his trial.
The court did not explain its reasoning and there were no noted dissents.
The court’s decision is a major blow to Smith, who made an extraordinary gamble when he asked the justices to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly deciding a fundamental issue in his election subversion criminal case against Trump.
Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.
They don’t even feel the need to explain themselves either. We truly need a revolution, French style, to fix this situation. It won’t happen until the grocery stores are empty
Or until the porn gets shut off.
The amount of Republicans that would go on killing spree because they don't have their porn would be insane. Better they can't eat than denying them hypocrisy.
Especially the repressed, projecting Republicans that need their porn to get off on their LGBT stuff
Given there were no dissents, its likely above board.
All of the court ascribes to "We don't want to look political despite being very political", and this is a cheap win in that area for them. 'Above board' is a strong term.
There were no noted descents. This wasn't a ruling. We don't have 9 voices. It means that less than 4 justices wanted to take the case. It's rare any desents in this type of decision would be public.
Fortunately the Colorado Supreme Court gave the SCOTUS a deadline of Jan 5 to rule or STFU. This will go a long way towards determining whether we continue to have somewhat of a democratic-ish country or we run full steam into fascism.
I don’t think that’s how they worded it. The stay holds if the Supreme Court picks it up. That means that all they have to do is not rule on it and he still gets put on the ballot because of the stay.
ETA: https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/12/20/24009521/supreme-court-donald-trump-colorado-ballot-insurrection-fourteenth-amendment-anderson-griswold
I'm reading this as Biden should just start locking the traitors up, due process be damned. Firing squads on fifth avenue. If a president can't be tried while they're sitting, and they can't be tried after they leave, none of it matters and I see no problems here. That sound right, SCOTUS?
The rightwingnuts already accuse him of similar crimes.
This is why I never feel bad about taking government aid to which I am entitled.
After all, republicans already say I, and those like me, are taking it (despite the fact that red states receive far far far more aid than blue), so I might as well just use it and actually benefit from the programs, since the negative perception exists whether I do or not.
Maybe this is the same…🤔🧐
While I don't disagree that SCOTUS might very well get around to giving Trump a get out of jail free card, they haven't acted inappropriately yet. It isn't the normal flow for this appeal to immediately go to SCOTUS; the expected result for such an attempt is denial.
They've taken things yo faster before when there is a time imperative to do so. There is here. They're breaking their own precedent.
But there isn't a time imperative here.
...what? How is there not a time imperative? Getting the case completed one way or the other before he is a candidate for president is absolutely time imperative.
ferralcat@monyet.cc says there is precedent. What precedent is there for that?
One example case was an incident at a hotel called watergate
That's a pretty obscure reference, I imagine not many people have heard about that incident. Or repeatedly made reference to it for every real or fake scandal since.
The Supreme Court expedited the Watergate case for the purpose of preventing someone from becoming a candidate for President?
Who?
No - the precident set is that the supreme court can make decisions on a case before it goes through a full set of appeals. In US v Nixon the supreme court expedited a ruling before the appeals court held a hearing, allowing prosecutors to get to work in a timely fashion. That ruling released and unsealed the evidence that ultimately lead to Nixon's resignation.
I would think getting this motion moving should help Trump, because he's clearly innocent and will be very distracted with his cases now looking to start while trying to run for president.
He has been a candidate for president for over a year now. He filed the FEC paperwork November last year.
You're being deliberately obtuse, here. You know that I was referring to the actual election, and the immediate lead-up once the major parties have decided on their own candidates. It is important to determine if Trump could potentially go to jail before he is the Republican candidate. In fact, it's important to determine if he is going to jail before then, which means we would need to know if it could potentially happen well before that.
I mean, no it’s not being obtuse. He is a candidate for president. Legally he is no different now than if he were to win the nomination.
Also, there are exactly 0 stipulations on someone in jail from running or being president. Not being in jail is not one of the constitutional requirements.
This entire SCOTUS bit is largely irrelevant other than to secure a conviction before the election, which would sway voters.
It's delaying , and aiding Trump's bullshit. Prosecutors are going to spend months of process now, for the same question to inevitably hit SC's desk, before Smith can loop back to Trump in time to start his trial 60 odd days before the elections, when he'll get to whine and complain that trials are interfering with his candidacy. What an infuriatingly corrupt institution.
There's a process, and the DC circuit is the next stop. Why didn't the liberal justices dissent? This is fairly standard.
Yeah, keep that process in mind after Trump wins 2024, pardons himself and carries on with this concept of ironclad immunity for the presidential office. I'm sure it will be a real comfort knowing we did everything we could except expedit this incredibly exceptional circumstance.
I understand the wheels of justice grind slow, and so does trump. He's weaponizing and banking on this for his escape maneuver, and that alone should put this case to priority #1.
Edit: and that's before we even consider his defense: "maybe I'm immune from crimes committed during office, forever?" is not how this concept has ever been interpreted. It's a ridiculous proposal with a simple response.
It doesn't sound like this is a surprise.
Yes, but it also means that Trump successfully used his bad-faith delay tactics.
SCROTUS.
Of fucking course.