Fogbow

"I honestly hope that at some point soon, Dark Brandon holds a presser and reminds folks that if SCOTUS says a president has full immunity for anything and everything he does while in office, quote, “I’m canceling the election and throwing trump in jail. Bite me.”"

Stolen from Jeffro on Balloon Juice.

You can guess which way one particular justice will go.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:17 pm I do not think that the SC will decide in favor of Trump on his claim of immunity. And I think that could be a positive result. If the SC rejects immunity before the election, the ruling will receive widespread publicity across the country and the takeaway will be that Trump is not immune for crimes committed while in office. Just being optimistic here.

In my opinion and, more important, in the opinion of many commenters' I follow, the point is that they are delaying the trial. IOW, giving him immunity for all intents and purposes, by delaying the trial till after the election. IOW, creating a wider path for him to win.

Hence, the end.

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:28 pm You can guess which way one particular justice will go.

They got five to hear the case. Thomas (whom you slyly mention), Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, and Kavenaugh.

I know that the three Dem appointed justices will not say anything, but fuck me, they should.

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:43 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:28 pm You can guess which way one particular justice will go.

They got five to hear the case. Thomas (whom you slyly mention), Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, and Kavenaugh.

I know that the three Dem appointed justices will not say anything, but fuck me, they should.

They would have needed five for a stay, but they only need four to grant certiorari. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get five, but I don’t think the vote tally has been released.

On the contrary. (I've been thinking about this.)

However pissed off the three might be at the certirorari voting, what's important now is voting on the merits. Nothing to be gained by a snarky dissent, and possibly a lot to lose.

The certiorari vote tally is never released, although you can sometimes figure it out from dissents.

June bug wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:55 pm

p0rtia wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:43 pm

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:28 pm You can guess which way one particular justice will go.

They got five to hear the case. Thomas (whom you slyly mention), Alito, Gorsuch, Barret, and Kavenaugh.

I know that the three Dem appointed justices will not say anything, but fuck me, they should.

They would have needed five for a stay, but they only need four to grant certiorari. That doesn’t mean they didn’t get five, but I don’t think the vote tally has been released.

Just heard discussed by Andrew Weissman that the stay has been granted. I hope he was wrong, or that I misheard.

The really bad kind of stay -- allowing time for Trump to seek reconsideration en banc -- was denied as moot.

However, Judge Chutkan's order will remain stayed until the Supremes sing whatever song they're going to sing.

On Deadline White House I heard Weissman also. My interpretation of his interpretation (!) was that they took the application for a stay to also encompass an appeal and they granted certiorari as though it were an appeal.

It seemed like all the lawyers and Judge Luttig were talking about "dissenters" who wanted to hear the appeal, which is one reason I thought they might have had only four votes instead of five. It's certainly possible there were five; I just don't know if that's a given. Either way, Trump achieved his main goal - delay, delay, delay!!! And I'm very much afraid that in this case, "Justice delayed will prove to be justice denied."

chancery wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:19 pm The really bad kind of stay -- allowing time for Trump to seek reconsideration en banc -- was denied as moot.

However, Judge Chutkan's order will remain stayed until the Supremes sing whatever song they're going to sing.

That's what I was referring to. Would that not have taken five votes?

Anyway, the point that Weissman made was that if those traitors had actually wanted to see justice done, they would have ended the stay on the Chutkan trial.

The excuses being made on MSNBC (all I've had time to check on so far) by some of the talking head lawyers are appalling. Sure, no one knows for sure, but anyone who doesn't hear the alarm bells of democracy ringing is delusional.

Republicans against Trump @RpsAgainstTrump wrote: Conservative Former federal judge @judgeluttig:

“There was no reason in this world for the Supreme Court to take this case.”

SuzieC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:17 pm I do not think that the SC will decide in favor of Trump on his claim of immunity. And I think that could be a positive result. If the SC rejects immunity before the election, the ruling will receive widespread publicity across the country and the takeaway will be that Trump is not immune for crimes committed while in office. Just being optimistic here.

I’m going with Suzie here because, for my mental health, I must.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 7:40 pm

SuzieC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 6:17 pm I do not think that the SC will decide in favor of Trump on his claim of immunity. And I think that could be a positive result. If the SC rejects immunity before the election, the ruling will receive widespread publicity across the country and the takeaway will be that Trump is not immune for crimes committed while in office. Just being optimistic here.

I’m going with Suzie here because, for my mental health, I must.

Thank you Slim. Waiting to hear what my regular commenters and gurus Heather, Teri, Jay, Simon, Lucian and Jeff have to say.

SCOTUS' order:

The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted . . . ."

It takes five justices to grant a stay. I infer from the order that (at least) five justices agreed to construe the application as a cert. petition.

There are no public dissents to this order.

The Special Counsel, in the government's opposition, argued against a stay. But it requested that, if SCOTUS was inclined to grant the stay, then to also grant cert.

The "stay" requires the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold its mandate, which in effect continues the stay originally issued by the district court.

Too also:


This is a good point. A SCOTUS ruling will short-circuit immunity motions in all of his other cases.

“Supreme court to hear Trump immunity claim in election interference case”:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... nity-claim

“The reason that Trump will not go to trial as soon as the supreme court rules is because Trump is technically entitled to the “defense preparation time” that he had remaining when he filed his first appeal to the DC circuit on 8 December 2023, which triggered the stay.
Trump has 87 days remaining from that period, calculated by finding the difference between the original 4 March trial date and 8 December. The earliest that Trump could go to trial in Washington, as a result, is by adding 87 days to the date of the supreme court’s final decision.
With oral arguments set for April, a ruling might not be handed down until May. Alternatively, in the worst case scenario for the special counsel, the supreme court could wait until the end of its current term in July, which could mean the trial might be delayed until late September at the earliest.”

Again, for mental health reasons, I have to stay optimistic on this, but, big but, if SCOTUS decides trump has no immunity, that could be a big effing deal to people who are wondering if the guy they are considering voting for could end up in prison.

Sure, Trump could win and shut everything down. I’m painfully aware of that. But a big part of his argument is that he’s immune from anything he did, or will do, as POTUS up to and including shooting someone on Fifth Avenue. With the election right around the corner, voters will finally be paying attention.

Or SCOTUS could declare him immune and I’ll have to go out and buy myself a gas oven.

bob wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 8:11 pm SCOTUS' order:

The application for a stay presented to The Chief Justice is referred by him to the Court. The Special Counsel’s request to treat the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari is granted . . . ."

It takes five justices to grant a stay. I infer from the order that (at least) five justices agreed to construe the application as a cert. petition.

There are no public dissents to this order.

The Special Counsel, in the government's opposition, argued against a stay. But it requested that, if SCOTUS was inclined to grant the stay, then to also grant cert.

The "stay" requires the D.C. Circuit to continue to hold its mandate, which in effect continues the stay originally issued by the district court.

Too also:


This is a good point. A SCOTUS ruling will short-circuit immunity motions in all of his other cases.

Look who's posted an argument for at least a little optimisim - it's BB!!!

Our own Butterfly Bildeberg!!!

University of Texas professor and experienced federal litigator Steve Vladek opened a thread on his substack to take questions about the Supreme Court's order and what to expect going forward.

https://stevevladeck.substack.com/p/ton ... s/comments?

It's really good. He engages with the questions patiently, and in fact pretty much all I'm doing is reading his replies, which usually include all you need to know about the questions.

You might need to subscribe to his substack, but it's free and worthwhile.

A more negative slant from Scott Lemieux on the Lawyers Guns & Money blog.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/20 ... -still-win

So Biden could lock tfg up in Area 51, and nothing could happen to him? I guess we'll find out soon.

In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

sterngard friegen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 28, 2024 10:19 pm In my view we are where we are as a result of the cowardice, incompetence and sloth of one man.

Merrick Garland.

He prosecuted the privates and let the officers get away. He finally moved after the January 6 Committee did most of his work for him. And then he appointed a Special Counsel. Why didn't he appoint a Special Counsel on day one?

Hard to argue with that.

Kinda like how badly we failed to hold the hairballs to account after the Civil War.

Sigh.

Merrick Fucking Garland.

On another note, it's gonna take a few days for the parameters to shake out. In the last hour I heard "They are hearing the case on a narrow basis" and then "They are hearing the case on a very broad basis."

Doesn't really matter. Corrupt as fuck. #FSCOTUS