When a respected judge like Michael Luttig says there’s no basis whatsoever for the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity claim, four chilling words come to mind: The fix is in.
When a respected judge like Michael Luttig says there’s no basis whatsoever for the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity claim, four chilling words come to mind: The fix is in.
I think this forum is massively overestimating how much this court cares about tfg and the election (little, if at all), and massively underestimating the need these incredibly self-important people have to be the final word on everything (all-consuming). They frequently hand down unanimous or lopsided decisions that reaffirm a lower court. Why bother taking that case then? Because they can and need to always remind us of that.
They will most likely hand down a near-unanimous ruling that the President is not a king, and the applause and attention this will get will create a briefly distracting sentiment of "see, *sometimes* they rule for the other side!" right before they rule that machine guns are OK in public parks or declaring the real purpose of the EPA is to send Exxon Valentines or whatever insanely destructive crap they have up their sleeves this year.
Will, I find one significant lapse in an otherwise well-reasoned argument. Were the High Court solely invested in having the last word, it simply would have agreed, via the required 4 votes, to hear the case. Instead, despite the option just to take the case but not grant the stay, there had to be a 5th vote to admit the stay, allowing for a continuation of the pause on all pre-trial proceedings. Said delay virtually ensures the case won’t be tried before the election.
I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem a bit unworkable to me to allow a case to proceed to trial when the central pre-trial question has yet to be decided. It would be like putting something in the oven and *then* checking the cookbook to make sure you were not missing an ingredient. They should have dismissed this entirely, but I feel like they would have to dismiss the case or accept it *and* grant stay, no?
Will, In response to your comment, I would note, while claims of immunity were being decided, that certain pre-trial filings (i.e., arguments over requests for documents and records or over appeals for preventing certain witnesses from testifying) could still move forward to keep the case on track to meet its scheduled trial date. Additionally, precedent exists for matters like claims of immunity to be heard post-conviction on appeal.
So . . . Gorsuch , Kavanaugh (I’m still wondering who paid off his credit card & mortgage debts) & Barrett have repaid their debt to tRUmp, and, along with Thomas (he’ll never recuse) & Alito are looking to install “il Duce!”
...and once he's elected, both Alito & Thomas will promptly retire in order to make sure there are 2 more Repugnants on the (un)Supreme Court and there will be no more justice in this country.
Agreed. The SCOTUS justices must realize they would become nothing more than a MAGA rubber stamp should DT and his supporters re-take control of the executive branch, no matter how invested 6 of them are in the current culture wars.
Once again proving that a minority (the small guy, the weak, the underappreciated, the brilliant autocrat) can and will win over the evil that we are ( goodness, integrity, actually live by the intent of the laws we pass, affect,fairness).
Later in the program Neal Katyal advanced the idea that the Supreme Court may feel compelled to rule because, in the Mar-a-lago case, 45 has claimed immunity as well.
That’s correct. The appellate decision was in relation to the facts in the DC case.
An interesting aspect of today’s Order is that they dismissed Trump’s application for a stay as moot. Rather, they directed the Appellate Court to continue to withhold their mandate until the Supremes “send down” their judgment. One of their criteria for granting a stay is that a majority believe there is substantial likelihood the appellant would prevail on the merits if cert is granted. By dismissing the application for stay as moot, they explicitly state that they are not “expressing a view on the merits.”
Do you think that might also mean that they didn’t have the 5 votes needed for a stay, but were desperate to delay the trial and this was what they came up with?
Just a guess, but I’d like to believe that there aren’t five who think it’s likely to succeed on the merits. Had they granted a stay (as requested in this application) there might have been a en banc appeal delay and then another delay for an application for cert.
TFFG's lawyer's claim that he removed the documents while he was still President.
They are not arguing that he has immunity from prosecution for the obstruction claims.
And the other two doofeses will likely spend a considerable amount of time behind bars. TFFG may be forced to pick out his own clothes or maybe Mercedes will do it for him. /S
I heard Judge Luttig say this, right after the Supreme Court published their decision to hear the Trump appeal. It was clear that this esteemed legal scholar, whom I certainly admire, was and is profoundly troubled by the Supreme Court's willingness to engage with this Trump case. It remains to be seen , of course, but it may result in many of the legal charges against Trump being washed away like soap suds in your morning shower.
When a respected judge like Michael Luttig says there’s no basis whatsoever for the Supreme Court to hear Trump’s immunity claim, four chilling words come to mind: The fix is in.
I think this forum is massively overestimating how much this court cares about tfg and the election (little, if at all), and massively underestimating the need these incredibly self-important people have to be the final word on everything (all-consuming). They frequently hand down unanimous or lopsided decisions that reaffirm a lower court. Why bother taking that case then? Because they can and need to always remind us of that.
They will most likely hand down a near-unanimous ruling that the President is not a king, and the applause and attention this will get will create a briefly distracting sentiment of "see, *sometimes* they rule for the other side!" right before they rule that machine guns are OK in public parks or declaring the real purpose of the EPA is to send Exxon Valentines or whatever insanely destructive crap they have up their sleeves this year.
Will, I find one significant lapse in an otherwise well-reasoned argument. Were the High Court solely invested in having the last word, it simply would have agreed, via the required 4 votes, to hear the case. Instead, despite the option just to take the case but not grant the stay, there had to be a 5th vote to admit the stay, allowing for a continuation of the pause on all pre-trial proceedings. Said delay virtually ensures the case won’t be tried before the election.
I mean, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem a bit unworkable to me to allow a case to proceed to trial when the central pre-trial question has yet to be decided. It would be like putting something in the oven and *then* checking the cookbook to make sure you were not missing an ingredient. They should have dismissed this entirely, but I feel like they would have to dismiss the case or accept it *and* grant stay, no?
Will, In response to your comment, I would note, while claims of immunity were being decided, that certain pre-trial filings (i.e., arguments over requests for documents and records or over appeals for preventing certain witnesses from testifying) could still move forward to keep the case on track to meet its scheduled trial date. Additionally, precedent exists for matters like claims of immunity to be heard post-conviction on appeal.
So . . . Gorsuch , Kavanaugh (I’m still wondering who paid off his credit card & mortgage debts) & Barrett have repaid their debt to tRUmp, and, along with Thomas (he’ll never recuse) & Alito are looking to install “il Duce!”
Alito will likely write the opinion quoting medieval writings from some obscure theologian.
In his (hopefully) dissent, he would point out that *originally* the Founding Father's were loyal English subjects to a mad king.
May Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh burn in hell with Mitch, Trump and all the MAGATS in Congress. Did I miss anyone?
...and once he's elected, both Alito & Thomas will promptly retire in order to make sure there are 2 more Repugnants on the (un)Supreme Court and there will be no more justice in this country.
And, would they be willing to Crown Biden?
My faith in even the overweening egos of the SC is waning.
Oh, there are some intense egos there, to be sure.
Hmm. My faith in the overweening egos of the SC is waxing.
Interesting take, Will. Your last paragraph is a zinger!
Agreed. The SCOTUS justices must realize they would become nothing more than a MAGA rubber stamp should DT and his supporters re-take control of the executive branch, no matter how invested 6 of them are in the current culture wars.
The federalist society bought SCOTUS justices are showing that they are supporting Trump and his fascism!
Once again proving that a minority (the small guy, the weak, the underappreciated, the brilliant autocrat) can and will win over the evil that we are ( goodness, integrity, actually live by the intent of the laws we pass, affect,fairness).
Later in the program Neal Katyal advanced the idea that the Supreme Court may feel compelled to rule because, in the Mar-a-lago case, 45 has claimed immunity as well.
But SCROUTS could have just affirmed the very solid decision of the appellate court which would have made it apply nationwide.
Instead, the corrupt partisan hacks on the Robert’s Kangaroo court played Cheetolini’s game and delayed any chance of justice.
They are BEYOND contempt and utterly undeserving of respect.
Plus they could have heard the case next week. But they are probably going on a retreat to Fiji on some billionaires's dime.
Neal Katyal said that the appellate court ruling would not apply nationally.
That’s correct. The appellate decision was in relation to the facts in the DC case.
An interesting aspect of today’s Order is that they dismissed Trump’s application for a stay as moot. Rather, they directed the Appellate Court to continue to withhold their mandate until the Supremes “send down” their judgment. One of their criteria for granting a stay is that a majority believe there is substantial likelihood the appellant would prevail on the merits if cert is granted. By dismissing the application for stay as moot, they explicitly state that they are not “expressing a view on the merits.”
Do you think that might also mean that they didn’t have the 5 votes needed for a stay, but were desperate to delay the trial and this was what they came up with?
Just a guess, but I’d like to believe that there aren’t five who think it’s likely to succeed on the merits. Had they granted a stay (as requested in this application) there might have been a en banc appeal delay and then another delay for an application for cert.
Exactly. Thus Scrotus could/should have simply affirmed it, thus making it apply nationwide.
I don't get how immunity would apply in the classified documents case. He wasn't president when he refused to return the documents.
Neal didn’t elaborate—I would imagine that it might apply to his taking them down there in the first place.
TFFG's lawyer's claim that he removed the documents while he was still President.
They are not arguing that he has immunity from prosecution for the obstruction claims.
And the other two doofeses will likely spend a considerable amount of time behind bars. TFFG may be forced to pick out his own clothes or maybe Mercedes will do it for him. /S
I heard Judge Luttig say this, right after the Supreme Court published their decision to hear the Trump appeal. It was clear that this esteemed legal scholar, whom I certainly admire, was and is profoundly troubled by the Supreme Court's willingness to engage with this Trump case. It remains to be seen , of course, but it may result in many of the legal charges against Trump being washed away like soap suds in your morning shower.
Judge Luttig, like the rest of us, keeps learning that this Supreme Court is like no other. Norms? What norms?
And we are in a fix. Unbelievable.
I think you’re right, unfortunately 😡
... "We" herein doubted that for one hot second ?