Post trump Legal Actions, Including his Enablers

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Hopefully SCOTUS will choose not to hear his appeal.

I am sure they will wait until, say, November 6th to announce that.

And if they are tempted to move faster - well, I hear there are some Supreme Court justices who need a superyacht vacation, stat.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

It would be informative to see who wants to hear the appeal, and who does not.  Unfortunately we usually don't get to see how individual justices vote on these things.

 

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I am sure they will wait until, say, November 6th to announce that.

And if they are tempted to move faster - well, I hear there are some Supreme Court justices who need a superyacht vacation, stat.

Isn’t this the one where the prosecutors asked if they could just skip the appeals court and go straight to the SC because everyone involved knew it was going to end up there anyway? Surprise surprise they weren’t in favour of speeding things up.

[billvon 2,400]

Appeals court:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

There's gonna be ketchup a-flyin tonight at the ol' Mar-a-Lago.

[headoverheels 291]

On 2/6/2024 at 10:21 AM, jakee said:

Isn’t this the one where the prosecutors asked if they could just skip the appeals court and go straight to the SC because everyone involved knew it was going to end up there anyway? Surprise surprise they weren’t in favour of speeding things up.

My understanding is that they can still request the full circuit court to consider the appeal, not just the panel of 3 circuit judges that shot down the appeal.  That only got them a few days of delay in another appeal, when the request to consider was summarily and unanimously denied.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, headoverheels said:

My understanding is that they can still request the full circuit court to consider the appeal, not just the panel of 3 circuit judges that shot down the appeal.  That only got them a few days of delay in another appeal, when the request to consider was summarily and unanimously denied.

They can. However the way the ruling is written is that a request for en banc hearing would not delay release of the mandate. In other words, the simple request wouldn't change anything. However a petition for cert would delay release of mandate.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

54 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

They can. However the way the ruling is written is that a request for en banc hearing would not delay release of the mandate. In other words, the simple request wouldn't change anything. However a petition for cert would delay release of mandate.

American exceptionalism at it's finest. Well, I don't want to leave out our medical system or our police or our,________________________

[gowlerk 1,913]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

American exceptionalism at it's finest. Well, I don't want to leave out our medical system or our police or our,________________________

Oh fer the love of god! You have the very best investment banks in the world. Isn't that enough?

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Oh fer the love of god! You have the very best investment banks in the world.

Well, when they're doing well.  When they're not they need bailouts.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Anybody else listen to the SC arguments on the Colorado case today? Unbelievable that shitty lawyers are going to lose this case. Alito saved Trumps lawyer from a major f-up and even Jackson wasn’t smart enough to focus on the originalism argument. What a joke.

[jakee 1,255]

From the synopsis it sounded to me like shitty Justices are going to lose it. Every question I heard they asked was about practicality and political expediency rather than the Constitution.

[gowlerk 1,913]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

From the synopsis it sounded to me like shitty Justices are going to lose it. Every question I heard they asked was about practicality and political expediency rather than the Constitution.

I'm pretty sure we all know and knew that the narrowly decided CO ruling would not stand. It is going to be overturned most likely unanimously.   

Edited February 9 by gowlerk

[jakee 1,255]

22 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'm pretty sure we all know and knew that the narrowly decided CO ruling would not stand. It is going to be overturned most likely unanimously.   

Sure, but I’d have thought there’d be some pretence at a legal opinion being being offered. Not just ‘should we bother with Constitutional limits when there’s someone I really really want to vote for?’

Edited February 9 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,123]

9 hours ago, jakee said:

From the synopsis it sounded to me like shitty Justices are going to lose it. Every question I heard they asked was about practicality and political expediency rather than the Constitution.

I think the SCOTUS hearing was always going to be about how to find the most expedient off-ramp.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

I think the SCOTUS hearing was always going to be about how to find the most expedient off-ramp.

Unlike Bush v Gore, apparently.

[normiss 622]

10 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Unlike Bush v Gore, apparently.

Speaking of "stollen" elections ...

[tkhayes 126]

13 hours ago, jakee said:

From the synopsis it sounded to me like shitty Justices are going to lose it. Every question I heard they asked was about practicality and political expediency rather than the Constitution.

yeah I love how state rights are 100% solid and constitutional when it comes to abortion and carrying guns, but trump... well, we really can't trust the states to run elections.

[jakee 1,255]

43 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

yeah I love how state rights are 100% solid and constitutional when it comes to abortion and carrying guns, but trump... well, we really can't trust the states to run elections.

And seemingly as a result of presiding over the most corrupt Supreme Court ever (that we know of) while fighting any efforts for ethical reform, Roberts thinks that every other American court is even more corrupt. Arguing that other states would disqualify Joe Biden for no reason but retaliation, and their judiciaries would all just go along with it.

On the plus side, the court gave a clear signal to the Democrats who would love to push Biden aside - just run Obama again! After all, if the people want to vote for him it would be plain unnacceptable disenfranchisement not to let them.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 hours ago, tkhayes said:

yeah I love how state rights are 100% solid and constitutional when it comes to abortion and carrying guns, but trump... well, we really can't trust the states to run elections.

On several occasions I pushed back on skydekkers, too glib I thought then, assertions that the US was just another banana republic. I was wrong. We truly are becoming a world class embarrassment and on a daily basis I feel more and more removed from my American identity. I have options and no kids so I can simply check out. But every one with kids and a vested interest in the future of America out to be spending most of their free time on getting out the vote and spending whatever money they have to spare on the process.

[tkhayes 126]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

On several occasions I pushed back on skydekkers, too glib I thought then, assertions that the US was just another banana republic. I was wrong. We truly are becoming a world class embarrassment and on a daily basis I feel more and more removed from my American identity. I have options and no kids so I can simply check out. But every one with kids and a vested interest in the future of America out to be spending most of their free time on getting out the vote and spending whatever money they have to spare on the process.

Well the system can still be saved.... but the SCOTUS seems to think that this can only be done by the voters.... which means, even if the voters elect a dictatorial fascist party whose platform openly defies the constitution, then I guess that is OK.....?  So much for the checks and balances that were built in to keep the seditionists out of office.

But hey, they have not ruled on anything yet and frankly, I listening the the arguments live and I did not hear all the doom and gloom that is coming out of the media on the matter.  So I am willing to wait on the ruling.... which also may not be a ruling at all.  SCOTUS may choose some limp noodle thingy that accomplishes nothing and kicks the can down the road.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

23 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

Well the system can still be saved.... but the SCOTUS seems to think that this can only be done by the voters.... which means, even if the voters elect a dictatorial fascist party whose platform openly defies the constitution, then I guess that is OK.....?  So much for the checks and balances that were built in to keep the seditionists out of office.

But hey, they have not ruled on anything yet and frankly, I listening the the arguments live and I did not hear all the doom and gloom that is coming out of the media on the matter.  So I am willing to wait on the ruling.... which also may not be a ruling at all.  SCOTUS may choose some limp noodle thingy that accomplishes nothing and kicks the can down the road.

Yes, the system can be saved if young’uns and suburban women come out in force and vote D. I am not holding my breath. I also listened to the arguments; a charitable description at best, and was unimpressed. Even Kagen was off target. The all let the office vs. official crap get totally overblown. The only focus the liberals should have had was the textualist and originalist arguments. They blew it.

[wmw999 2,122]

I’m no longer holding my breath, either. With their antics, DeSantis and Abbott have made the border a national item (it’s high on Massachusetts residents’ priorities because of housing). And the Repubs are refusing to bargain in good faith.

My prediction: Trump will make it his top campaign item. He’ll do just as shitty a job this time as last time, but he will head us in a spoils system direction (as opposed to relying on the Civil Service). Theodore Roosevelt would be banging his head against the wall.

Im holding my breath now that Trump will die or deteriorate too much before the election. Because Nikki Haley probably beats Biden, and while I don’t love that, she does believe in fixing what seems broke, instead of blowing it up.

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I’m no longer holding my breath, either. With their antics, DeSantis and Abbott have made the border a national item (it’s high on Massachusetts residents’ priorities because of housing). And the Repubs are refusing to bargain in good faith.

My prediction: Trump will make it his top campaign item. He’ll do just as shitty a job this time as last time, but he will head us in a spoils system direction (as opposed to relying on the Civil Service). Theodore Roosevelt would be banging his head against the wall.

Im holding my breath now that Trump will die or deteriorate too much before the election. Because Nikki Haley probably beats Biden, and while I don’t love that, she does believe in fixing what seems broke, instead of blowing it up.

Wendy P. 

Rather strange what qualifies as a cheery projection these days, no?

Edited February 10 by JoeWeber

[gowlerk 1,913]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Rather strange what qualifies as a cheery projection these days, no?

The outcome of the election is largely up to the will of the American people. Yes, I know the Electoral College slants in favour of whoever is the R nominee but even so in a semi-democracy the people get the leaders they deserve. If Trump gets in again who is to blame? It is not the media or the corporations. Neither of these vote. The people vote if they are so inclined. It is just freaking mind boggling.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

2 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The outcome of the election is largely up to the will of the American people. Yes, I know the Electoral College slants in favour of whoever is the R nominee but even so in a semi-democracy the people get the leaders they deserve. If Trump gets in again who is to blame? It is not the media or the corporations. Neither of these vote. The people vote if they are so inclined. It is just freaking mind boggling.

I think it's slightly more accurate to state that it's the people who don't vote who have given us the leaders they deserve.