Jack Smith's cases in jeopardy because he was NOT legally appointed. (Poll)

[Skylar]

The Supreme Court could take up the issue on the immunity case. They could simply invalidate Smith and avoid the immunity issue altogether. A fine solution to avoid an extremely contentious ruling that will forever be part of Robert's already questionable legacy.

They could. But I doubt it. The Supreme Court as an institution doesn't like to mix flavors. They'll likely rule on the immunity issue as narrowly as possible.

Thomas in particular loves to try and broaden the scope of tight rulings. Like he did in with the Dobbs, trying to expand the overturning of the right to privacy as also overturning contraception restrictions, eliminating restrictions of the criminalization of homosexuality and the overturning the right of gay marriage.

Ironically, his logic would also apply to Loving. Which might be a bit awkward for him personally. But I digress.

At any rate, the court wasn't having it. They kept the ruling tight. As I suspect they will for Trump's immunity case.

 

[Rogue AI]

They could. But I doubt it. The Supreme Court as an institution doesn't like to mix flavors. They'll likely rule on the immunity issue as narrowly as possible.

Thomas in particular loves to try and broaden the scope of tight rulings. Like he did in with the Dobbs, trying to expand the overturning of the right to privacy as also overturning contraception restrictions, eliminating restrictions of the criminalization of homosexuality and the overturning the right of gay marriage.

Ironically, his logic would also apply to Loving. Which might be a bit awkward for him personally. But I digress.

At any rate, the court wasn't having it. They kept the ruling tight. As I suspect they will for Trump's immunity case.

If the Court feels Smith's position is invalid they have a duty to remedy it. That's not an expansion. If Smith is invalid, everything he did was also invalid.

 

[Skylar]

If the Court feels Smith's position is invalid they have a duty to remedy it. That's not an expansion. If Smith is invalid, everything he did was also invalid.

I don't disagree, if that's what they conclude. I just don't see them doing that in the immunity ruling. Thomas is a poor indicator of the court's inclinations on broadening a ruling. He's almost always shut down.

The Smith eligibility issue would have its own case, with each ruling being tight rather than broad.

 

[Rogue AI]

I don't disagree, if that's what they conclude. I just don't see them doing that in the immunity ruling. Thomas is a poor indicator of the court's inclinations on broadening a ruling. He's almost always shut down.

The Smith eligibility issue would have its own case, with each ruling being tight rather than broad.

I imagine if they believe Smith is invalid they will take it up now rather than look like fools later for having ignored it. Particularly given other matters can still arise from Smith's cases against Trump. If they feel all of this is invalid anything more is a waste of time. I should hope they are not so petty as to waste this opportunity for appearances sake.

 

[Skylar]

I imagine if they believe Smith is invalid they will take it up now rather than look like fools later for having ignored it.

Smith's eligibility isn't the legal issue that the courts are assessing in the immunity case.

The court traditionally is loathe to shoehorn in unrelated legal challenges into existing cases. They overwhelmingly have a unique ruling, unique hearing and unique case for each issue.

I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Thomas' willingness to expand the case is a poor indicator of the court's inclination to follow. They almost always shut him down.

Particularly given other matters can still arise from Smith's cases against Trump. If they feel all of this is invalid anything more is a waste of time. I should hope they are not so petty as to waste this opportunity for appearances sake.

If its that important to the court, they'll likely fast track the issue for its own ruling. But just slap it on the tail end of an unrelated legal challenge?

Really unlikely.

 

[Rogue AI]

Smith's eligibility isn't the legal issue that the courts are assessing in the immunity case.

The court traditionally is loathe to shoehorn in unrelated legal challenges into existing cases. They overwhelmingly have a unique ruling, unique hearing and unique case for each issue.

I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Thomas' willingness to expand the case is a poor indicator of the court's inclination to follow. They almost always shut him down.


If its that important to the court, they'll likely fast track the issue for its own ruling. But just slap it on the tail end of an unrelated legal challenge?

Really unlikely.

Normally I would agree, given this Court's history. The fact that the basis of the issue before them could be invalid rather supercedes the issue itself. It is not in the People's or government's interest to continue if there is no basis.

 

[Skylar]

Normally I would agree, given this Court's history. The fact that the basis of the issue before them could be invalid rather supercedes the issue itself. It is not in the People's or government's interest to continue if there is no basis.

I'd be glad to bet you're wrong. Say, a week off this board for whomever loses?

Again, they have remedy. They could fast track a challenge sent up Cannon, any of Trump's attorney's, any J6 defendant. This isn't a new challenge. Friends of the Court briefs and J6 defendants have already brought it up and already been shut down. The federal judiciary in lower courts has just shut this down.

The Heritage Foundation has been pushing this argument since January. Gene Schaerr filed a petition for cert to the United States Court of Appeals last year. At any time the SCOTUS could have snatched the case up, even without a petition for cert.

They didn't.

The Supreme Court has expressed zero indication of interest in any part of this argument, save Thomas. And he's a notoriously poor indicator of the court's inclinations in expanding narrow rulings.

Making it quite unlikely they are so concerned with it that they will erratically shoe horn it into another ruling on an unrelated issue.

 

[BackAgain]

Smith's eligibility isn't the legal issue that the courts are assessing in the immunity case.

You might be surprised.

SCOTUS accepted the Meese brief. And Justice Thomas followed up on it at oral arguments. And it is a very weighty and legitimate Constitutional issue which it raises. So, maybe keep an open mind.

My crystal ball is broken. But I still have my spidey senses. And they are telling me that the SCOTUS can dodge the bigger issue if it wants to by deciding this issue.

And since it’s quite clear, they might just take that route.

However, they might also say “fuck it. Trump is right. Presidents ought to be immune from criminal prosecutions for the very reasons we spelled out (and on the same various bases) as in the Presidential civil immunity decision.” Plus, Smith was unconstitutionally appointed.

 

[Rogue AI]

I'd be glad to bet you're wrong. Say, a week off this board for whomever loses?

Again, they have remedy. They could fast track a challenge sent up Cannon, any of Trump's attorney's, any J6 defendant. This isn't a new challenge. Friends of the Court briefs and J6 defendants have already brought it up and already been shut down. The federal judiciary in lower courts has just shut this down.

The Heritage Foundation has been pushing this argument since January. Gene Schaerr filed a petition for cert to the United States Court of Appeals last year. At any time the SCOTUS could have snatched the case up, even without a petition for cert.

They didn't.

The Supreme Court has expressed zero indication of interest in any part of this argument, save Thomas. And he's a notoriously poor indicator of the court's inclinations in expanding narrow rulings.

Making it quite unlikely they are so concerned with it that they will erratically shoe horn it into another ruling on an unrelated issue.

No thanks on your bet. If I'm wrong I can admit it. There are other interesting cases that will be decided around the same time. I will not deprive myself of the entertainment you folks will provide when those rulings come.

Why take it separately when the case will be before them anyway? That's illogical.

 

[Skylar]

You might be surprised.

I really won't be. Immunity is a completely unrelated issue. The issue of Smith's eligibility has been raised by both friends of the court briefs and petitions for cert in appeals courts starting last year. This is not a new argument.

The Supreme Court could have moved at any time in the last 6 months if it found the issue that compelling or that important. One of these petitions for appeals court cert was for US V. Trump itself.

They have shown zero interest in doing so beyond Thomas. And Thomas is an abysmal indicator of the direction the court is moving on broadening of tight rulings.

See Dodd and Thomas' concurrent ruling that tries to build off the dismantling of the right to privacy to overturn prohibitions on gay marriage, criminalization of homosexuality, or limits to contraception. The court just shut Thomas down.

Making the likelihood that its suddenly now so important them that they will just shoehorn it in on an unrelated case profoundly unlikely.

Which they almost never do.

SCOTUS accepted the Meese brief. And Justice Thomas followed up on it at oral arguments. And it is a very weighty and legitimate Constitutional issue which it raises. So, maybe keep an open mind.

SCOTUS almost never reject friends of the court briefs. Making their 'acceptance' a moot point. I could file an amicus brief and they'd almost certainly 'accept' it.

And as mentioned above with Thomas, he is a terrible indicator of the court's willingness to radically broaden an otherwise tight ruling. Roberts in particular like a tight ship when it comes to the scope of his rulings.

If its genuinely that important to the court, they could have acted when this argument first reached the federal judiciary back last year. They haven't. And if its suddenly so important to them that they feel they need to act quiickly, they have remedy to pick up any brief or case submitted to the federal judicary and rule on that specifically.

There's simply no indication of interest beyond Thomas, and no indication of so much urgency that they would take such extraordinary measures as to shoehorn in a ruling on an unrelated issue.

Which again, they almost never do.

 

[BackAgain]

I really won't be. Immunity is a completely unrelated issue. The issue of Smith's eligibility has been raised by both friends of the court briefs and petitions for cert in appeals courts starting last year. This is not a new argument.

The Supreme Court could have moved at any time in the last 6 months if it found the issue that compelling or that important. One of these petitions for appeals court cert was for US V. Trump itself.

They have shown zero interest in doing so beyond Thomas. And Thomas is an abysmal indicator of the direction the court is moving on broadening of tight rulings.

See Dodd and Thomas' concurrent ruling that tries to build off the dismantling of the right to privacy to overturn prohibitions on gay marriage, criminalization of homosexuality, or limits to contraception. The court just shut Thomas down.

Making the likelihood that its suddenly now so important them that they will just shoehorn it in on an unrelated case profoundly unlikely.

Which they almost never do.



SCOTUS almost never reject friends of the court briefs. Making their 'acceptance' a moot point. I could file an amicus brief and they'd almost certainly 'accept' it.

And as mentioned above with Thomas, he is a terrible indicator of the court's willingness to radically broaden an otherwise tight ruling. Roberts in particular like a tight ship when it comes to the scope of his rulings.

If its genuinely that important to the court, they could have acted when this argument first reached the federal judiciary back last year. They haven't. And if its suddenly so important to them that they feel they need to act quiickly, they have remedy to pick up any brief or case submitted to the federal judicary and rule on that specifically.

There's simply no indication of interest beyond Thomas, and no indication of so much urgency that they would take such extraordinary measures as to shoehorn in a ruling on an unrelated issue.

Which again, they almost never do.

You will be.

 

[Skylar]

You will be.

Care to bet on it? Say....a week off the board for whomever is wrong?

If the majority of Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling finds that Smith is ineligible to be special counsel due to the arguments laid out in the Meese brief, you win.

If the majority Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling doesn't find Smith is ineligible to be special counsel due to the arguments laid out in the Meese brief, I win.

Care to put some skin in the game? I'm quite comfortable with my odds of winning such a bet. I'm eager to see if you are.

Hell, I'll even throw you a bone. If the majority of Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling finds that Smith is ineligible to be special counsel for ANY REASON, you win. But it has to be in the immunity ruling. Not a concurrent opinion. Not a dissenting opinion.

But the majority opinion. The one that carries the weight of precedent.

 

[BackAgain]

Care to bet on it? Say....a week off the board for whomever is wrong?

If the majority of Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling finds that Smith is ineligible to be special counsel due to the arguments laid out in the Meese brief, you win.

If the majority Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling doesn't find Smith is ineligible to be special counsel due to the arguments laid out in the Meese brief, I win.

Care to put some skin in the game? I'm quite comfortable with my odds of winning such a bet. I'm eager to see if you are.

Hell, I'll even throw you a bone. If the majority of Supreme Court in its upcoming immunity ruling finds that Smith is ineligible to be special counsel for ANY REASON, you win. But it has to be in the immunity ruling. Not a concurrent opinion. Not a dissenting opinion.

But the majority opinion. The one that carries the weight of caselaw.

Just be patient. Watch and learn.

 

[Skylar]

Just be patient. Watch and learn.

So you won't put some skin in the game. You won't take the bet, even when I've made your conditions SO much easier to meet than my own.

Yeah, you don't sound that confident in your own predictions.

If I were saddled with your profoundly unlikely claims, I wouldn't have the slightest confidence either.

 

[BackAgain]

So you won't put some skin in the game. You won't take the bet, even when I've made your conditions SO much easier to meet than my own.

Yeah, you don't sound that confident in your own predictions.

If I were saddled with your profoundly unlikely claims, I wouldn't have the slightest confidence either.

Calm down little one.

Time will still tell.

Your embarrassment will be plenty of reward for me.

 

[kyzr]

The voters have to vote deprived of the knowledge that would be gained from seeing Trump on trial for his many indicted crimes.

Thanks largely to his loyal judges who has successfully delayed these trials for frivolous reasons.

So what information will voters be deprived of?
1. Voters didn't see the democrat's J6 show trial in the House?
2. Voters don't know that the FBI raided MAL and that there is a legal dispute over classified documents and presidential immunity?
3. Voters don't know that Biden stole classified documents, was to be indicted, but is too mentally deficient to stand trial.

 

[Marener]

So what information will voters be deprived of?
1. Voters didn't see the democrat's J6 show trial in the House?
2. Voters don't know that the FBI raided MAL and that there is a legal dispute over classified documents and presidential immunity?
3. Voters don't know that Biden stole classified documents, was to be indicted, but is too mentally deficient to stand trial.

We are deprived of knowing if Trump has illegally taken and retained classified documents and whether he obstructed justice to hide them from the DoJ.

 

[SeaMajor7]

We are deprived of knowing if Trump has illegally taken and retained classified documents and whether he obstructed justice to hide them from the DoJ.

Trump was PRESIDENT
The PRESIDENT can declassify documents
The END.

 

[DGS49]

The argument that Trump implicitly declassified the documents when he removed them from the WH is quite tenable. The markings on the documents and their folders do not trump the President's power to declassify.

Reasonable people can disagree.

 

[Marener]

Trump was PRESIDENT
The PRESIDENT can declassify documents
The END.

We don’t even know if he declassified the documents.