SCOTUS

[keith]

Didn't the hush money occur during the campaign? He wasn't president so not an official act.

The reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.

Ɓut the checks were personal checks or corporate checks, not drawn on the US Treasury. So undeniably not related to government administration in anyway.

[raison de arizona]

Didn't the hush money occur during the campaign? He wasn't president so not an official act.

The reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.

Ɓut the checks were personal checks or corporate checks, not drawn on the US Treasury. So undeniably not related to government administration in anyway.

Yeah, we'll see. They are basically trying to get all the evidence retroactively thrown out, is my read of this.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... =1&title=1

Moreover, as we argued previously, Tru forbid the “{uls ofevidence about such [offical] conduet, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct” [d. at *19. This includes President Trump's “Tweets” and “public ‘address[es).” /d. at *18. For that type of evidence, the Supreme Court remanded to the trial court for evaluationof“whether {his alleg

Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.

[bob]

Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.

Which is why I believe the judge will rule, "Even assuming the defendant is correct, and I consider only the pre-inauguration evidence, the prosecution still proved all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's motion for a new trial therefore is DENNIED."

That protects the record (and preserves the issue for appeal).

[raison de arizona]

Sorry that text copy is coming out like crap, but you can read the letter, they claim the SCOTUS ruling disallows the evidence even if the indictment alleges only unofficial conduct.

Which is why I believe the judge will rule, "Even assuming the defendant is correct, and I consider only the pre-inauguration evidence, the prosecution still proved all counts beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant's motion for a new trial therefore is DENNIED."

That protects the record (and preserves the issue for appeal).

I appreciate your optimism and respect your opinion, but the words "for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary" fill me with dread.

“The Court's decision will be rendered off calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,”

[bob]

I appreciate your optimism and respect your opinion, but the words "for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary" fill me with dread.

“The Court's decision will be rendered off calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings,”

Fair, but its omission could would be read as the judge having already ruled against the defendant. I don't think there's a correct choice, but its inclusion (or exclusion) seems reasonable.

But I also would not be surprised if the court denies the new-trial motion, but also stays imposing a sentence.

[pipistrelle]

[Frater I*I]

That and five bucks will buy Biden a cup of coffee...

[pipistrelle]

That and five bucks will buy Biden a cup of coffee...

Yep.

[MN-Skeptic]

That and five bucks will buy Biden a cup of coffee...

Yep.

I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.

[Frater I*I]

I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.

I'm fine with Biden taking a stand, I just do like how WAPO is making this out as BREAKING!!!!!!!, when in reality they know it's going nowhere, best just to print in in tomorrow's edition with no announcement....

[pipistrelle]

I’m all for Biden putting his policy positions out there even if they go nowhere. He’s taking a stand and that counts.

I'm fine with Biden taking a stand, I just do like how WAPO is making this out as BREAKING!!!!!!!, when in reality they know it's going nowhere, best just to print in in tomorrow's edition with no announcement....

In a roundtable with three of their right-wingers, one of them says something about Harris could be president soon; Democrats know how frail Biden is.

[Slim Cognito]

Yeah, except we're OK with that.

[New Turtle]

It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.

[bob]

"Finalizing plans" has been downgraded to "seriously considering."

I get that politicians regularly float policies that won't materialize. It is best aspirational or, more realistically, how the sausage is made for retail politicking.

But literally nothing proposed is going to materialize until the House is retaken (and the filibuster is abolished).

[Frater I*I]

It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.

Then the QOP goes to 15 when they regain power....

[Frater I*I]

But literally nothing proposed is going to materialize until the House is retaken (and the filibuster is abolished).

And if that happens the QOP, when they regain power, will eliminate the Civil Rights Act....

That's why Dems haven't axed it....

[zekeb]

SCOTUS justices should be elected to eight year terms. It's nice to say, but does our Constitution even permit this? It's too bad our founding fathers didn't have a tardis and looked ahead 200 years.

[Foggy]

No. Term limits for justices will require a constitutional amendment.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ...

[pipistrelle]

No. Term limits for justices will require a constitutional amendment.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ...

Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.

[bob]

Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.

The House can always send articles of impeachmen.....

Nevermind.

Edit: Type-O.

[pipistrelle]

Accepting bribes is good for somebody, you gotta admit. And dismissing national security cases without a pretense of justification.

The House can always sent articles of impeachmen.....

Nevermind.

Yep. Farcical.

[Ben-Prime]

It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.

I think the 13 count would be an easier lift than term limits.

[Ben-Prime]

No. Term limits for justices will require a constitutional amendment.

The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour ...

Since the Congress can otherwise make rules for the courts, though, can they do something like "An Associate or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has served for more than X years may not give public argument or vote on cases at controversy admitted before the Supreme Court, though they may still perform other functions of members of that court such as oversight of circuit courts, vote on certiorari decisions before the court to hear cases, and be present at arguments before the court."? Then they are not removing the justices from their positions, and the justices get full pay and benefits, but they are limited in certain roles and duties Congress may have the power to prescribe or proscribe?

I'm spitballing here, as everyone knows IANAL. So I'm wondering if there's a way to make the FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT of term limits that would work, is what I'm asking, even if my specific wording above wouldn't pass muster.

[realist]

It's time for the Democrats to run on expanding the court to 13. Flip the Senate seat in FL and carve out a path around the filibuster. They can start to pick up independent votes the more people realize we have 2 wannabe retirees in there doing everything they want to do except step down.

Then the QOP goes to 15 when they regain power....

[bob]

Since the Congress can otherwise make rules for the courts, though, can they do something like "An Associate or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who has served for more than X years may not give public argument or vote on cases at controversy admitted before the Supreme Court, though they may still perform other functions of members of that court such as oversight of circuit courts, vote on certiorari decisions before the court to hear cases, and be present at arguments before the court."? Then they are not removing the justices from their positions, and the justices get full pay and benefits, but they are limited in certain roles and duties Congress may have the power to prescribe or proscribe?

I'm spitballing here, as everyone knows IANAL. So I'm wondering if there's a way to make the FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT of term limits that would work, is what I'm asking, even if my specific wording above wouldn't pass muster.

That idea essentially has been floated before. The proposal is, after 18 years of service, every justice is "promoted" to senior justice, and a new associate comes onto the bench. Senior justices would do very little (they still would hear original jurisdiction cases, which are rare).

It is walking a fine line on constitutionality. Congress can establish some contours for SCOTUS' appellate jurisdiction, so limiting appellate jurisdiction to only justices with less than 18 years tenure just might skirt the eligibility requirements in Article III. But probably not: I don't see this SCOTUS permitting a backdoor amendment to Article III.

And, of course, it is DOA in this Congress.