Supreme Court won't fast-track ruling on Trump's claim of immunity

[aggiesal]

Source: Washington Post

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will not fast-track consideration of Donald Trump's claim that he has immunity from prosecution for actions he took as president, a question crucial to whether he can be put on trial for plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.



The court's one-sentence order, from which there were no noted dissents, means a federal appeals court in Washington will be the first to review a district judge's ruling earlier this month rejecting Trump's claim of immunity. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9.

Special counsel Jack Smith had asked the justices to short-circuit the normal appellate process and quickly settle the question of presidential criminal immunity, which the Supreme Court previously has not been called upon to resolve. He said public interest required intervention now, so the federal election-obstruction trial of Trump -- the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination -- could proceed as scheduled in March.

Link has no Paywall

Read more: https://wapo.st/4aqDBEB

---

What would you expect from a pig but a snort?

Delay, delay, deeeelaaaaayyy

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Kissing Trump's ass again.

[MOMFUDSKI]

2. Translate this for me like I am 5 years old.

Does this help clown or not? I don’t speak legalese. Thanks in advance

[aggiesal]

5. Yes it helps the clown. It's delay, delay, delay ...

Pendejo45 asked to not fast track and SCOTUS complied.

[Kennah]

27. I tend to agree, but ...

... this may push a Trump conviction closer to the middle of the election season.

[LiberalLovinLug]

97. As soon as it looks like its going to run into the next election

The SCOTUS five will declare that its unfair to poor little Trumpy to have to deal with it during an election.

[Silent Type]

13. CNN legal analysts saying it makes Smith's March date for trial all but impossible. Case has to go to

Appellate Court, then likely to Supreme Court. More delays.

[claudette]

45. This means that the

SCROTUS wants the case to be heard first in the DC appellate court. Then Dump can appeal to his pals on SCROTUS. That means Dump won his DELAY. Of course, it's up to the appeals court to hear the case and rule quickly. We can hope.

[getagrip_already]

55. Possibly not..

The court of appeals has put this on a super fast track. They can have a decision by the second week of January.

If, as we suspect they shoot tiny down, all scotus needs to do is vote to not take up the case at all.

There really won't be a question of law for them to rule on. There is no case law, no common law, and nothing in the constitution concerning it.

There shouldn't be anything they think they need to weigh in on.

[bluestarone]

3. So we now know

Co-conspirators. Just to add here, the no comment part really really STINKS

[liberalgunwilltravel]

36. My reading of the reports

I read there were dissents noted!!!! WTH?

[Basic LA]

4. Over my head.

Then who won, Trump or Smith? What does it mean?

[aggiesal]

6. Smith wanted fast-track, Pendejo45 requested delay ...

SCOTUS complied with Pendejo45's request.

Delay, delay, delay

[Basic LA]

8. Great summation. Thanks!

[JohnSJ]

12. I think Smith also asked the appeal court to fast-track it, so we will see what happens.

[agingdem]

20. I don't think it's all gloom and doom...

I think the SC was going to take their damned time because of the holidays... and the appeals court is scheduled to hear arguments in 18 days..and it's entirely possible the SC will allow the lower court's decision to stand...I suspect Jack Smith and his team were anticipating this...

[JohnSJ]

22. I hope you are right. This one should be a slam dunk. No one is above the law.

[agingdem]

26. I'm thinking the SC is really skittish about this one...

almost afraid to make precedent...the SC's approval is swirling the toilet so by allowing the appeals court to do the dirty work they keep the sludge off of them for a while longer..

[PlutosHeart]

28. I agree with that one.

[agingdem]

47. I would rather this three quarters bent SC do nothing

than do the wrong thing..

[rubbersole]

34. Could be trying to avoid the death threats that inevitability come.

[padah513]

66. Afraid to make precedent, not afraid to toss others' precedent right out the window

[agingdem]

69. that's true..

but if they rule presidential immunity is a thing, then Joe Biden has carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants without consequence...they can't bow to Trump without rewarding Biden in the interim...

[machoneman]

80. So, if any prez is totally immune, Joe could have the SS shoot the TFG (or do it himself) and get of scott-free, right?

[agingdem]

82. Probably...

if Trump can incite an insurrection/steal classified documents and the SC says presidential immunity is a thing then Biden can punish and reward with impunity..

[SouthernDem4ever]

84. They don't care about their approval rating

as long as there are fascists magats who love them.

[agingdem]

95. I'm pretty sure Chief Justice Roberts cares about

Last edited Sun Dec 24, 2023, 06:16 AM - Edit history (1)

his legacy...the fact that the Roberts SC will enter the history/law books as the most corrupt, the most dysfunctional, the most skewed right SC ever, probably irks the shit out of him....not that Roberts has clean hands with his wife raking in the big bucks matching lawyers to top law firms, lawyers with business before the SC...and if I had to guess, I would say Trump's reprehensible three have no love for Hitler-wannabe...they owe their appointments to Mitch McConnell...and Leonard Leo who is under scrutiny...

with the exceptions of Alito and Thomas, the court does not to want touch "presidential immunity" and is only too happy to allow the lower court to swim in Trump's poop

[SouthernDem4ever]

98. It would be nice if this were true

but money and power is their prime motivation - and obviously, they have that and that's all their supporters care about at the expense of all that was good about our country.

[sheshe2]

76. Agree.

No one is above the law unless the RW justices say they are... hmmmm

[erronis]

49. Everything I've seen shows that Jack Smith (the Special Counsel - SC) anticipates everything

I think his team plays out many possible outcomes in every case and prepares ahead of time.

I also think the enemies (Russians, repuglicons, plutocrats) are also planning many steps ahead.

Let's hope the good people win! (I hope you know who I mean.)

[elleng]

67. Hope you're right.

[Igel]

83. He did.

He requested fast-track at the appellate level, something unlikely if he believed SCOTUS would pre-empt the lower courts.

[JohnSJ]

7. not a surprise. Anyone who thinks this SC will NOT overturn the Colorado SC removing trump from the ballot

is fooling themselves.

2016 was a disaster, and those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election by either voting third party, or not voting contributed to the Supreme Court we have today, and it appears some of the same actors are trying to do the same thing for the 2024 election.

[bluestarone]

15. Oh yea the bastards WILL fast track that.

Kinda show who's supporting who. This decision just set the DEMOCRACY clock to NIGHTMARE stage.

[JohnSJ]

18. Last hope we have is 2024. We are hanging by a thread.

[bluestarone]

19. IF they get involved with the Colorado SC decision, then

How the fuck can they deny getting involved in the immunity decision? THAT shows how fucking worthless they are!!

[FBaggins]

30. Then get ready to be disappointed - because both are likely to happen in the normal course of events

One would be an appeal of a state supreme court case. The normal next step is SCOTUS - and since it deals with a vote with pending deadlines, of course it's going to be expedited.

OTOH - the immunity decision is just a district court. The normal next step is the appellate court. It's actually unusual for SCOTUS to take up a case in that situation.

[bluestarone]

38. TY for this. (and i know you're 100% correct) It just blows me away

how TFG keeps getting help. I so want that SOB in prison. ( I still feel that Smith knew what he was doing) which tells me the SC Could have ruled differently. They just decided not too. (what really bothers me is the QUIET part from OUR liberals on this court) They should have commented. Period!

[former9thward]

40. Why would they comment?

They would have if they disagreed with the decision.

[bluestarone]

44. You actually believe they agreed?

[former9thward]

46. Yes.

I think on a case like this they would have filed a dissent if they disagreed.

[bluestarone]

48. My question.

IF they all agreed, why didn't the state this? Seems like the perfect answer would have been, ("by 9 to 0 this was decided.I cannot believe they wouldn't make that known!

[former9thward]

52. That has never been their practice.

They just give a one sentenced order with their decision. If anyone dissents, they can file a written dissent with their reasons. They are not required to do so but in cases with high public interest they often do.

[bluestarone]

54. Well, I do have a hard time believing there was no dessent

Not saying i'm right, but that's how i feel. Surely they dissented but chose not to respond.

[AkFemDem]

58. That's not how it works.

They (or more specifically, their clerks) write up a dissent- it’s important for future case law that it be on record. They chose not to dissent, they were in agreement.

[Igel]

86. Because they don't need to, that's why.

Look at it this way.

They choose to let the usual order of events play out. They get to see what the appeals courts dig up and have to say. They get more information on which to base their decision. But this isn't a "delay", it's just not a "rush"--for something that needs to be done right, not rushed. It's like saying the 65 mph speed limit on the freeway is a "delay" when I'm in a hurry for work and I'm slow-tracking things by not going 90 mph.

At the same time, it's a slam-dunk the appeals court will side with Smith. 2 Obama appointees, 1 Bush(1), they'll go with Smith and it won't probably go past Jan. 20.

Then Trump is in the position of appealing. If Smith appeals, there's a strong bias for SCOTUS to pick up the case because it's the DOJ/Executive branch appealing. But a defendant? Defendants get less luv, a greater percentage are just passed up. And they'll pass up the appeal quickly unless there's something obviously wrong with the lower courts' decisions.

Now, consider if SCOTUS did pick it up, more likely if Smith loses at the appellate level or if SCOTUS picked it up a few days ago. Yes, there's winter recess and I'd guess that they've made plans and since this isn't a life-and-death issue, they could wait. Plus it's better to get it right than rushed if you're interested in principles of our democracy instead of just wielding power, and the only reason to rush is a political reason--it's been nearly 3 years, what's another 3 or 4 months? Unless you have a special prosecutor making a blatantly political decision to be involved in the electoral process.

But SCOTUS 'fast-track' would still necessarily mean collecting briefs, hearing arguments, getting more briefs. After all, it's not like Trump is only involved in one court case. Then there'd be the SCOTUS-internal arguments. They might easily 'fast track it' and issue the opinion in late May or early June. Whereas by having the appellate court do the dirty work and then just denying a defendant's appeal works just fine and is faster by far.

[bluestarone]

91. TY! I was upset, like most here. I'm always thankful for all you smart posters here.

Do you have ant thoughts on what will happen to the Colorado SC decision? Will the US SC put a pause on that decision? I'm thinking yes, because OTHER states will also try this same thing. Anyway TYVM for you're thoughts here.

[quakerboy]

57. I think they will not, and i think this is them throwing donald a bone

They are trying to avoid the death threats and violent acts likely to follow when they rule against him on the colorado ballot removal.

But they also owe their souls to people with money. People smart enough to know that trump is a sure fire loser on the general election ballot.

[EndlessWire]

71. There are so many cases and appeals

I'm getting really mixed up.

So, this is Jack's request to fast track the immunity claim? This immunity claim underlies all of Trump's defenses in all of the cases and indictments.

So the recent Colorado Supreme Court decision that Trump participated in an insurrection, thereby disqualifying him from the ballot, is separate from Jack's action. But, do they blend together because Trump claims that he had the right as King, er, President to say what he wanted, do whatever he wanted?

So, Jack had two opportunities to fast track this immunity defense? And SCOTUS just shot down his second request without comment? I think that it may very well be that they could decline to even take the case, or may be waiting for Trump's inevitable appeal to them when he loses Jack's first response. I dunno, I need to redo my spreadsheet, I am starting to lose clarity.

Also, EJ Carroll's case is coming up on January 16th, I believe, and also he is claiming immunity in that case, too. WTF? Doesn't SCOTUS believe in justice anywhere? Because, when that case arrives at a verdict, Trump will file an appeal for that decision, as well. He doesn't care how many times judges have told him "no."

Trump doesn't have immunity from crime, period. From sexual assault to insurrection to stealing classified documents, he is expecting the Supremes to declare him exempt, that he is above the law. The USSC better step up. This is not hard! If they need months to figure it out, there is really something wrong. The naked light of day will expose them and what their bribe money bought us.

[Igel]

87. No, these two cases are fundamentally different.

They cannot overlap, they do not overlap.

[jaxexpat]

78. I think the US constitution gives states the whole responsibility and power to operate ..........

and control all aspects of elections within their borders. That could, I guess, include candidate eligibility per constitutional interpretation. It's kind of the basis for the "states' rights" argument of "lost cause" civil war history rewritten which has haunted the nation since the early 20th century. This whole affair may turn out to define our understanding of the terms paradox and ambiguity. (Only not in cursive.)

The USSC would seem even more arcane than they are if they interpret the constitution to say that known insurrectionists were acceptable presidential candidates. It would be disastrous, especially for the perpetually secretive-yet-strident and intrepid revolutionist. I mean, consider the fate of all the basement-dwelling fantasy nihilists and utopia-through-violence warriors. What would they have left to define their "kampf" with? What good is anarchy when it's sanctioned by the state? It is the stuff of classic comedy, "man's eternal struggle within the permissive culture".

[machoneman]

81. They may simply be taking the easy way out. Let the voters decide!

[Freethinker65]

9. So letting Trump delay just as Trump wanted.

[claudette]

42. Then they don't

belong in that job

[CincyDem]

10. This is what makes 6-3 so onerous...they can "rule" by withholding cert.

No arguments, no hearing, no rationale and no need to respect (or create) precedent...effectively ruling through a f'ed up appellate division that's loaded with MAGAts.

[FBaggins]

32. Not really

Sure - they can withhold cert - but even a 6-3 majority can't keep the three liberals from saying that they think the expedited appeal should have been heard (and why).

[CincyDem]

56. Agree. Unfortunately, their cert dissent won't get a hearing.

I wish it were worth more but other than being interesting reading, no real effect.

[diva77]

11. Maybe they're afraid of death threats too...

[BlueKota]

14. All any Republican knows how

to do is kiss his corpulent ass. I have lost any hope that he will be held accountable for his shit. I keep thinking you can't win by playing fair and by the rules when the other side has no intention of doing the same. Someone on our side needs to come up with something to hoist them on their own petard!

[iluvtennis]

16. It's really is pathetic that SCOTUS won't expedite this motion.

[Igel]

88. I tend to think that it may actually be faster this way.

Let the appeals court deny Trump's claim, have the full court reject an en banc hearing. SCOTUS gets the appeal from Trump and denies cert.

Done and dusted.

[Scalded Nun]

17. Interesting to know where some of the Supremes will be flown to for their holiday vacations

[chowder66]

21. This!

[bluestarone]

23. I have to ask here

Where are our liberal judges? NO COMMENT? come on this is BULLSHIT. They should be SCREAMING like we are? Somethings gotta be holding them back. I would feel better if SOME JUDGE would come forward with SOMETHING.

[Polybius]

25. Maybe they agreed

We weren't told of the vote.

[bucolic_frolic]

24. SCOTUS can't even hammer home a no-brainer gimme

Sick GOP phuxx

[Hermit-The-Prog]

29. How much did this cost?

[rubbersole]

35. Prepaid.

[rambler_american]

31. Quelle Surprise. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

33. Supreme Court is pay to play. So what bribes did they get for this?

[dalton99a]

39. Santa was generous this year

with more to come

[Irish_Dem]

62. Probably the usual Wash DC bribes.

Cash, hookers, drugs, lavish vacations, hobnobbing with the jet set.

[MichMan]

79. Is that why there was no dissent ?

[Irish_Dem]

85. Maybe some inside baseball politics, agendas and agreements.

The stakes are very high. Back room bargaining is likely.

We can no longer be naive about how the SC operates.

While not all of the justices are taking bribes, it is a very intense political
atmosphere and there will be some strategic maneuvering going on.

As events unfold, we will know more about it.

[MichMan]

89. It appeared that you were accusing Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson of accepting bribes

Specifically cash, hookers, drugs and vacations

[Irish_Dem]

92. This is absurd.

1. There is zero evidence that female members of the Supreme Court are committing these kind of crimes.

2. It is also very low probability that older women would be interested in hookers and drugs.

3. The members of this forum are mostly sophisticated, intelligent, educated people.

4. Most people understand the facts about the Supreme Court and certainly understood what I meant
without having to spell it out in great detail.

5. I certainly understand the DU rules, and my history here shows I comply with those rules.

[MichMan]

93. I thought so too

[AllaN01Bear]

37. that has been his mo most of his adult life . outspend using other ppls money delay delay delay and out live . hes 77

wating for him to croak.

[claudette]

41. And there you have it

Dump bought the SCROTUS and they love him. I have no hope now that they will uphold the Colorado ruling banning Dump from the ballot. Heaven help America because of the orange criminal.

[Demnh2fl]

43. The Supreme Court hated

This shows how this Court has been bought. This will create even more division in this country. We can't expect the Court to do the right thing ever. Trump maybe celebrating but the nation is being destroyed. When the dictator gets elected he will not abide by anything the Court decides and a Constitutional crisis will be complete.

[pfitz59]

50. It's possible SCrOTUS merely punted the decision.

If the Appellate Court rules against Trump, and SCrOTUS refuses to hear further appeals, there we are.

[forgotmylogin]

64. Yeah, hopefully the process is:

JACK SMITH: Hey, appellate court. Does a citizen get retroactive lifetime blanket immunity for any crimes they commit because they won a contest seven years ago?

APPELLATE COURT: LOL, no.

SUPREME COURT: This is decided, we don't need to hear it again.

[FalloutShelter]

51. There is not enough tomato juice in the world

To was the stink off of this SCOTUS.

[Comfortably_Numb]

53. Looks like Slappy Thomas is getting a new motor home....

[GreenWave]

59. The whole thing (I am immune but noone else is) was a Trump ploy.

He obviously has no immunity. It was a childish thing to even suggest. Just convict the fucker before the elections.

[OverBurn]

60. Just fucking die already. Solve problems for once.

[MayReasonRule]

61. What To Expect?

If they take it up after the DC circuit court denies trumps baseless claims they're clearly delaying and stonewalling. If they let the DC COA ruling stand, they are wiping their hands clean of trump.

First of all, let me congratulate Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for moving the process of confirming the nomination of Judge Roberts along with such civility, a civility that I believe speaks well of the Senate.

Let me also say that I remain distressed that the White House during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide critical documents as part of the record that could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. This White House continues to stymie efforts on the part of the Senate to do its job. I hope with the next nominee who comes up for the Supreme Court that the White House recognizes that in fact it is its duty not just to the Senate but to the American people to make sure we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the record of every single nominee who comes before us.

Having said that, the decision with respect to Judge Roberts' nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. As some of you know, I have not only argued cases before appellate courts but for 10 years was a member of the University of Chicago Law School faculty and taught courses in constitutional law. Part of the culture of the University of Chicago Law School faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. What engenders respect is not the particular outcome that a legal scholar arrives at but, rather, the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision.

Given that background, I am sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts based on my study of his resume, his conduct during the hearings, and a conversation I had with him yesterday afternoon.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn't have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court -- adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.

The problem I face -- a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts -- is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases -- what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn't like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process. I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.

But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.

Thank you very much

Confirmation of Judge John Roberts, Sen. Obama Speech

[CaptainTruth]

63. Good. Once again SCOTUS is ruling in favor of proper due process, exactly what we want Trump to be held to.

AKA, don't bypass lower courts & take issues to SCOTUS before the requisite conditions for SCOTUS review are met, which is what Trump wants to do all the time.

Let's hope this same attitude applies to the CO ballot issue.

[live love laugh]

65. NO dissents? None? THAT'S surprising.

[Igel]

90. Why?

The only public interest in rushing it is political. That's seldom considered a valid public interest in a legal setting.

I was amused when I was surprised by something I read recently. Smith is basically claiming a right to a speedy trial, but that's the right granted not to the prosecutor but to the defendant. That caused me to rethink how quickly the process should go--don't drag it out beyond what's reasonable, but don't rush it because the government has rights but the citizen doesn't.

[KS Toronado]

68. Seems like who ever Тяцмp is upset with gets death threats

from his MAGAt followers, this why the court kicked the can down the road?

[surfered]

70. Yeah, they're just too busy...

…taking those luxury vacations and fishing trips paid for by their billionaire “friends.”

[Deminpenn]

72. Not surprising since the DC Appeals court has fast-tracked Trump's appeal

I believe, the filing and response deadlines run from 12/23 to 1/2. The lawyers will be working through the holidays. It won't surprise me if the court has a decision within a week afterwards. If, as many expect, the DC Appeals Court rules against Trump, then he will appeal to SCOTUS. But SCOTUS does not have to take the case. SCOTUS could just as easily let the lower court ruling stand as they did with cases of election fraud that Trump et all appealed to them.

[Novara]

73. Exactly. This isn't as bad as it seems.

I've been reading some smarter minds than mine on this and several legal experts are saying that the SCOTUS is taking the easy way out because they expect the DC circuit court to affirm the ruling (that he isn't immune) and then the SCOTUS won't take the appeal when it comes to them, leaving that decision in place.

Keep in mind the DC court is fast-tracking this. Theoretically, the March 4 trial date could still happen. It probably won't, but this likely won't create a huge delay.

So sit tight and keep your eye on the DC court.

[RetiredFF]

96. Supreme Court brief states Jack Smith does not have legal standing.

Supreme Court brief states Jack Smith does not have legal standing as his appointment was improper. This is the reason.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293864/20231220140217967_US%20v.%20Trump%20amicus%20final.pdf

If this holds up it will make all of Jack Smith's work invalid.

[Kablooie]

74. I'll bet the Justices don't want Trump tried before the election and will work towards that end.

It would create too many complications with him having to go to trials instead of campaigning and if he was ordered to jail, who knows what would happen.
All of this would probably have to be resolved by the Supreme court and they don't want to have to decide these things.

They will do everything they can to make sure Trump can run and run without any legal entanglements.

Let's just hope to god that he doesn't win.

[intheflow]

75. Disappointing but I wonder

if the thought process is to have it go through all regular channels to avoid charges of a political witch hunt from the rabid to stir the pot of rabid MAGA crazies. That could explain why the liberal justices didn’t comment, as well.

[duckworth969]

77. Obstruction case is a bigger concern

I think the immunity case will be decided by the Appeals Court. They will rule in our favor, denying Chump presidential immunity.

SC will not take it up. That defense is off the table.

CO case…I think SCOTUS will rule Chump is guilty of insurrection but will sidestep prohibiting from being on the ballot.

Obstruction case, if SC sticks it’s big snoot in too far and agrees with Chump nominated Appeal judge decision, that could make two of the four indictments moot in J6 case.

[The Grand Illuminist]

94. All because of one thing

We allow it to happen.