Politics And Current Events

[tifosi77]

Probably memory holed, but through whatever means, Smith tried to take this directly to the supreme court. But they declined and made it go through the normal process.

So the case alleging the former President of trying to overturn the presidential election results is not going to be tried until after said former president runs in the next presidential election. (meant to be read in the J. Peterman voice reciting the Kramer story about soiling the pants he was on his way to return)

From what I remember of the talking heads, this discretion is granted by express statutory authority. It's not a custom that's evolved with time, Congress actually passed a law that gave SCOTUS the power to grant petitions to hear appellate cases in matters of 'great public significance' (or whatever the phrase is) and bypass the Court of Appeals phase.

The Roberts court has been particularly keen to exercise this authority, but I'm not sure how much of that came about because of the number of cases arising from COVID-era policies; the Court went like 14 or 15 years without granting a single one of these expedited petitions, and then in the last...... five years(?) they've granted like 20 of them.

[tifosi77]

In Bush v. Gore there was a set deadline by which Florida's returns had to be certified. There is no such statutory deadline here.

True dat.

But there was a trial court date, was there not? The date of the 2024 election has been fixed since the last time federal election dates were sorted (about 150 years ago, give or take). So it's not like this case was percolating in a vacuum with no external calendar influences.

[Shyster]

Quicker

They are doing the appeal quicker. For a standard appeal, the appellant's brief is due 45 days after the grant of certiorari, the appellee's brief is due 30 days after the appellant files, and the appellant's reply brief is due 30 days after the appellee files. So the standard briefing schedule is a maximum of 105 days. For any other petition for a writ of certiorari that might have been granted by the SCOTUS this week, the briefing alone wouldn't be done until June, and the case wouldn't be argued until the start of the Court's next term in October.

[Shyster]

True dat.

But there was a trial court date, was there not? The date of the 2024 election has been fixed since the last time federal election dates were sorted (about 150 years ago, give or take). So it's not like this case was percolating in a vacuum with no external calendar influences.

Yeah, the SCOTUS (or any other appellate court) doesn't run by the trial court's schedule. And this appeal doesn't have anything to do with election law or ballot eligibility (unlike the other one on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment), so why would it need to be done by the election?

The answer, of course, is that Democrats want the court to rule quickly so that Orange Man Bad can be convicted and thrown in jail, which they hope will mean that he loses the election. Republicans don't want a trial before the election, so that Trump can win the election and then probably pardon himself or fire Jack Smith. Both sides should be honest that they just want the process to run by their preferred schedule out of a naked partisan desire to impact the election.

[Troy Loney]

Love that bottom paragraph. Yeah, just all partisan nonsense. One side wants to put their autocrat in power and stop criminal proceedings against him. The other side doesn’t want that.

[Troy Loney]

Quicker

They are doing the appeal quicker. For a standard appeal, the appellant's brief is due 45 days after the grant of certiorari, the appellee's brief is due 30 days after the appellant files, and the appellant's reply brief is due 30 days after the appellee files. So the standard briefing schedule is a maximum of 105 days. For any other petition for a writ of certiorari that might have been granted by the SCOTUS this week, the briefing alone wouldn't be done until June, and the case wouldn't be argued until the start of the Court's next term in October.

Does the trial judge need to delay the case pending this ruling?

[Shyster]

Love that bottom paragraph. Yeah, just all partisan nonsense. One side wants to put their autocrat in power and stop criminal proceedings against him. The other side doesn’t want that.

You meant to say, of course, that the corrupt swamp and the dementia-riddled crook that it's currently propping up "Weekend at Bernie's" style wants to stop the election of the noble leader that will expose all of their crimes, stop the border invasion, and Make America Great Again.

[Shyster]

Does the trial judge need to delay the case pending this ruling?

Yes. The granting of cert acts as a stay.

[Pavel Bure]

Love that bottom paragraph. Yeah, just all partisan nonsense. One side wants to put their autocrat in power and stop criminal proceedings against him. The other side doesn’t want that.

You meant to say, of course, that the corrupt swamp and the dementia-riddled crook that it's currently propping up "Weekend at Bernie's" style wants to stop the election of the noble leader that will expose all of their crimes, stop the border invasion, and Make America Great Again.

You see the absolute cruelty propagated by the right and you honestly believe “both sides” huh?

[Shyster]

You see the absolute cruelty propagated by the right and you honestly believe “both sides” huh?

I have it on good authority that the s**t produced by both wings of the Uniparty does, in fact, equally stink.

[MWB]

It would seem that getting the Trump legal stuff settled before the election would be logical, if you looked at it in a completely non-partisan way.

[eddy]

You see the absolute cruelty propagated by the right and you honestly believe “both sides” huh?

I have it on good authority that the s**t produced by both wings of the Uniparty does, in fact, equally stink.

Unfortunately you seem to be the only person to be able to think like that. And by that, I mean maybe just about everyone in here has specifically stated they A: Don't want Biden as their POTUS and B: if you broke the law, then you should be prosecuted. I guess you just like stirring the pot. It's pretty **** stupid.

[tifosi77]

And this appeal doesn't have anything to do with election law or ballot eligibility (unlike the other one on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment), so why would it need to be done by the election?

Whether or not a criminal trial that can potentially satisfy any controversies surrounding Section 3 can go forward does not have anything to do ballot eligibility. That's the claim here?

[Troy Loney]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If the legal system, from top to bottom, is unable to adjudicate whether the president and his campaign tried to do coup to stay in power before he enters the following election. Then it seems like this is not a partisan issue, but a flaw in the legal system. That allows partisan actors to manipulate the system to prevent even deciding anything.

[faftorial]

"Uniparty."

[NTP66]

"Uniparty."

Braindead talking point. Not worth the time.

[Shyster]

Whether or not a criminal trial that can potentially satisfy any controversies surrounding Section 3 can go forward does not have anything to do ballot eligibility. That's the claim here?

None of the four charges in that particular case (which are one count for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, one count for conspiracy against civil rights, and two counts for obstruction) are for insurrection. And a criminal conviction by itself is not disqualifying for the presidency. Even a conviction wouldn't necessarily make Trump ineligible to run for president.

Whether any of those crimes would qualify as "insurrection" for the purposes of Section 3 of the 14A would likely be an entirely separate lawsuit. That question is not part of the Section 3 case that is already before the SCOTUS, either.

[Shyster]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If the legal system, from top to bottom, is unable to adjudicate whether the president and his campaign tried to do coup to stay in power before he enters the following election. Then it seems like this is not a partisan issue, but a flaw in the legal system. That allows partisan actors to manipulate the system to prevent even deciding anything.

The legal system is adjudicating those legal questions as we speak. Your complaint seems to be that the courts are not instantly rendering the decisions that you want them to.

[tifosi77]

The complaint is that this one particular aspect of the judicial system is moving in ways that from the outside appear calculated to arrive at a result without having to do the requisite leg work.

It's like the Two Bobs in Office Space. They didn't communicate to Milton that he had been laid off months ago, they just told payroll to stop issuing his paychecks. They 'fixed the glitch' without having the messy conversation.

[Troy Loney]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

If the legal system, from top to bottom, is unable to adjudicate whether the president and his campaign tried to do coup to stay in power before he enters the following election. Then it seems like this is not a partisan issue, but a flaw in the legal system. That allows partisan actors to manipulate the system to prevent even deciding anything.

The legal system is adjudicating those legal questions as we speak. Your complaint seems to be that the courts are not instantly rendering the decisions that you want them to.

Instantly? This conduct took place 3+ years ago.

[CBear3]

Whether or not a criminal trial that can potentially satisfy any controversies surrounding Section 3 can go forward does not have anything to do ballot eligibility. That's the claim here?

None of the four charges in that particular case (which are one count for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government, one count for conspiracy against civil rights, and two counts for obstruction) are for insurrection. And a criminal conviction by itself is not disqualifying for the presidency. Even a conviction wouldn't necessarily make Trump ineligible to run for president.

Whether any of those crimes would qualify as "insurrection" for the purposes of Section 3 of the 14A would likely be an entirely separate lawsuit. That question is not part of the Section 3 case that is already before the SCOTUS, either.

Here's my only request:
I want the whole matter decided before election day. Because if it lasts longer you start throwing much of the government into situations where there is no playbook or ruleset. Either yes he's guilty and we've discussed what acts qualify as "insurrection," or no he's in the clear. 8 years ago he spent so much of his time talking about the Constitutional Crisis electing Hillary would create, and today electing him would create something multiple times messier.
My frustration ranges from Jack Smith taking his sweet ass time to SCOTUS not executing its authority to bypass the Court of Appeals to now hearing the case after a unanimous decision by the Appeals Court.

[Shyster]

Instantly? This conduct took place 3+ years ago.

And the criminal charges were only filed around six months ago.

I adopt the following post from attorney Dilan Esper as my response:

This "the courts are slow-walking Trump's immunity claim" narrative (for the most part coming from non-lawyers who don't understand anything about the system) is truly pissing me off. So here's the real story. 1/

President Trump was indicted last August. Notably that's the biggest slow walk of all- an August 2023 indictment for a January 2021 alleged crime, and 10 months after Jack Smith was appointed. But Smith is a saint among men and "on our team", so he cannot be criticized. 2/

President Trump's motion to dismiss was filed on September 29, less than TWO MONTHS after the case commenced. Judge Chutkan, who, again, gets no criticism because she's on the right "team", decided it on December 1, a two month delay. 3/

Nonetheless, to be clear, Judge Chutkan deserves no criticism for this. Two months from filing to decision on a motion to dismiss in federal court is VERY FAST. Usually you are looking at six months or more. This case was expedited. 4/

Donald Trump had a right, under law, to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeals and to stay the trial court proceedings while he did it. You may not like this rule, but it applies to ANYONE raising an immunity defense, not just Donald Trump. 5/

President Trump took his appeal and the court concluded briefing in JUST ONE MONTH, and then held oral argument on January 9 and decided the case February 6. This is LIGHTNING FAST. Most CoA cases take about a year to a year and half between commencement and conclusion. 6/

Further, the DC Circuit itself broke a norm to speed up the case further, and NOBODY criticized it for breaking this norm. It's a technical issue, but the "mandate" is the date on which a court of appeals judgment goes into effect. 7/

In a normal case, you get 15 days to petition the court to rehear the case (in case some error was made) or to suggest that the full court, rather than a 3 judge panel, hear the case, and then the decision takes effect 7 days after that. 8/

The DC Circuit panel took those 22 days away from President Trump. It did so even though we have no idea if the full DC Circuit actually might have wanted to hear the case. Doesn't matter, the panel said, we won't let you. The decision takes effect immediately. 9/

So President Trump was forced to file immediately for US Supreme Court review. Even here, his time was cut. Normally you get 3 months to file a petition to the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit gave President Trump A WEEK. Again, enormous speed. 10/

President Trump filed his application for SCOTUS to take the case on February 12. SCOTUS decided within just SIXTEEN DAYS to grant the application.

And then SCOTUS set a HIGHLY expedited briefing schedule. 11/

Normally, a case that is taken by the Supreme Court on February 28 will be briefed through the spring and summer, heard in October when the new term starts, and decided the following January or so. 12/

But SCOTUS held all briefing will be done by APRIL and it will be orally argued the week of 4/22. That sets this up for decision in early May. A motion that was filed in September goes through all three levels of the federal court system and gets decided by May. That's FAST! 13/

Want to know what regular order looks like? Well, Judge Chutkan takes 6 months to rule on the motion to dismiss, and rules on it the last week of March 2024. The DC Circuit appeal takes a year and is decided in March 2025. Throw on another month for the en banc denial. 14/

Trump petitions for certiorari in Spring 2025 and his petition is granted and the case is briefed in the summer and early fall and is argued in November 2025. It is decided in March 2026. That's what regular order is. This case has been expedited by ALMOST 2 YEARS TOTAL. 15/

And if you want to argue that a 5/24 decision is still too late, well, SCOTUS only controls the last 3 months of that delay. The rest of it? Blame the liberal Judge Chutkan and DC Circuit and ESPECIALLY the DOJ, who DIDN'T BRING THIS CASE FOR 2 1/2 YEARS! 16/

Seriously the court system took almost 2 years off a case that DOJ took 2 1/2 years to bring. The Supreme Court itself took 8 months off of the case. And we're blaming the Supreme Court? This is utterly wrong. 17/

The reality is once the DOJ decided it would take 2 1/2 years to bring January 6 charges, this goose was cooked. And that is the case even though the federal courts, including SCOTUS, tried to pull it out of the oven quicker at the end. End/

[Pavel Bure]

Yeah for all the **** we give @Shyster he clearly knows law better than any of us and I do appreciate the detailed answers on why the courts do things.

[Troy Loney]

Instantly? This conduct took place 3+ years ago.

And the criminal charges were only filed around six months ago.

I adopt the following post from attorney Dilan Esper as my response:

This "the courts are slow-walking Trump's immunity claim" narrative (for the most part coming from non-lawyers who don't understand anything about the system) is truly pissing me off. So here's the real story. 1/

President Trump was indicted last August. Notably that's the biggest slow walk of all- an August 2023 indictment for a January 2021 alleged crime, and 10 months after Jack Smith was appointed. But Smith is a saint among men and "on our team", so he cannot be criticized. 2/

President Trump's motion to dismiss was filed on September 29, less than TWO MONTHS after the case commenced. Judge Chutkan, who, again, gets no criticism because she's on the right "team", decided it on December 1, a two month delay. 3/

Nonetheless, to be clear, Judge Chutkan deserves no criticism for this. Two months from filing to decision on a motion to dismiss in federal court is VERY FAST. Usually you are looking at six months or more. This case was expedited. 4/

Donald Trump had a right, under law, to appeal this ruling to the Court of Appeals and to stay the trial court proceedings while he did it. You may not like this rule, but it applies to ANYONE raising an immunity defense, not just Donald Trump. 5/

President Trump took his appeal and the court concluded briefing in JUST ONE MONTH, and then held oral argument on January 9 and decided the case February 6. This is LIGHTNING FAST. Most CoA cases take about a year to a year and half between commencement and conclusion. 6/

Further, the DC Circuit itself broke a norm to speed up the case further, and NOBODY criticized it for breaking this norm. It's a technical issue, but the "mandate" is the date on which a court of appeals judgment goes into effect. 7/

In a normal case, you get 15 days to petition the court to rehear the case (in case some error was made) or to suggest that the full court, rather than a 3 judge panel, hear the case, and then the decision takes effect 7 days after that. 8/

The DC Circuit panel took those 22 days away from President Trump. It did so even though we have no idea if the full DC Circuit actually might have wanted to hear the case. Doesn't matter, the panel said, we won't let you. The decision takes effect immediately. 9/

So President Trump was forced to file immediately for US Supreme Court review. Even here, his time was cut. Normally you get 3 months to file a petition to the Supreme Court. The DC Circuit gave President Trump A WEEK. Again, enormous speed. 10/

President Trump filed his application for SCOTUS to take the case on February 12. SCOTUS decided within just SIXTEEN DAYS to grant the application.

And then SCOTUS set a HIGHLY expedited briefing schedule. 11/

Normally, a case that is taken by the Supreme Court on February 28 will be briefed through the spring and summer, heard in October when the new term starts, and decided the following January or so. 12/

But SCOTUS held all briefing will be done by APRIL and it will be orally argued the week of 4/22. That sets this up for decision in early May. A motion that was filed in September goes through all three levels of the federal court system and gets decided by May. That's FAST! 13/

Want to know what regular order looks like? Well, Judge Chutkan takes 6 months to rule on the motion to dismiss, and rules on it the last week of March 2024. The DC Circuit appeal takes a year and is decided in March 2025. Throw on another month for the en banc denial. 14/

Trump petitions for certiorari in Spring 2025 and his petition is granted and the case is briefed in the summer and early fall and is argued in November 2025. It is decided in March 2026. That's what regular order is. This case has been expedited by ALMOST 2 YEARS TOTAL. 15/

And if you want to argue that a 5/24 decision is still too late, well, SCOTUS only controls the last 3 months of that delay. The rest of it? Blame the liberal Judge Chutkan and DC Circuit and ESPECIALLY the DOJ, who DIDN'T BRING THIS CASE FOR 2 1/2 YEARS! 16/

Seriously the court system took almost 2 years off a case that DOJ took 2 1/2 years to bring. The Supreme Court itself took 8 months off of the case. And we're blaming the Supreme Court? This is utterly wrong. 17/

The reality is once the DOJ decided it would take 2 1/2 years to bring January 6 charges, this goose was cooked. And that is the case even though the federal courts, including SCOTUS, tried to pull it out of the oven quicker at the end. End/

I should have been clearer. When I said judicial system, i also meant the investigative / charging piece.

[dodint]

In the criminal justice system the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups: the police who investigate crime and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.