Trump Immunity

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why is it an emergency for SCOTUS to rule on this case?

Read what Smith wrote.

 

[Blaster]

Read what Smith wrote.

Smith was wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why is it an emergency for SCOTUS to rule on this case?

The Supreme Court Agreed to Consider Special Counsel’s Request to Rule Quickly on Trump’s Immunity
December 2023 WSJ
Jack Smith petitioned high court to bypass appeals panel so election-interference trial can start in March

---

On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court granted Smith’s motion to fast-track consideration of his petition, and it directed Trump to respond to Smith’s petition by 4 p.m. on Dec. 20.

Describing the case as presenting a “fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court on Monday to decide early next year, without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in, whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. “[G]iven the weighty and consequential character of the constitutional questions at stake,” Smith contended, “only this Court can provide the definitive and final resolution” of Trump’s “immunity claims that this case demands.”

Special counsel asks justices to weigh in now on Trump's immunity - SCOTUSblog

UPDATE (5:35 p.m.): On Monday afternoon, the Supreme Court granted Smith's motion to fast-track consideration of his petition, and it directed Trump to respond to Smith's petition by 4 p.m. on Dec. 20. Describing the case as presenting a “fundamental question at the heart of our democracy,” Spe

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Smith was wrong.

Nope. The Court did not offer a reason for its decision.

from Scotus Blog

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith to decide, without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in, whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Smith had asked the justices to act quickly to resolve the dispute over Trump’s immunity during the 2023-24 term, but the justices turned him down, in a brief unsigned order issued on Friday afternoon.

There were no dissents recorded from the decision not to hear the case at this time, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision.

 

[dudmuck]

Nope. The Court did not offer a reason for its decision.

from Scotus Blog

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request from Special Counsel Jack Smith to decide, without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in, whether former President Donald Trump can be tried on criminal charges that he conspired to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Smith had asked the justices to act quickly to resolve the dispute over Trump’s immunity during the 2023-24 term, but the justices turned him down, in a brief unsigned order issued on Friday afternoon.

There were no dissents recorded from the decision not to hear the case at this time, nor did the justices provide any explanation for their decision.

 

[Rawley]

It was a proper question and he directly petitioned the SC because it had federal matters at hand.

Uh, the case is in Federal Court.

 

[Rawley]

nope

 

[Moonglow]

Uh, the case is in Federal Court.

No kidding

 

[Rawley]

No kidding

Seems you didn't know that when you said there were "federal matters at hand."

They bitch slapped him for being an inconsistent hypocritical asshole in his arguments. When he brought the case he argued Trump wasn't being treated any different than any other criminal defendant. And the first chance he had he ditched normal procedure and claimed this case is so special and of such importance because Trump was President.

 

[Moonglow]

Seems you didn't know that when you said there were "federal matters at hand."

They bitch slapped him for being an inconsistent hypocritical asshole in his arguments. When he brought the case he argued Trump wasn't being treated any different than any other criminal defendant. And the first chance he had he ditched normal procedure and claimed this case is so special and of such importance because Trump was President.

Indeed there was no confusion since the federal matter at hand was a petition for an answer.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Uh, the case is in Federal Court.

Which court exactly?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Seems you didn't know that when you said there were "federal matters at hand."

They bitch slapped him for being an inconsistent hypocritical asshole in his arguments. When he brought the case he argued Trump wasn't being treated any different than any other criminal defendant. And the first chance he had he ditched normal procedure and claimed this case is so special and of such importance because Trump was President.

You people read far too much into decisions by the courts. When the decisions are read, it leaves one wondering wtf are you people always ranting and raving about.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

nope

Yes, it does. If he orders Trump taken into custody and the states to erase his name on the ballots, nothing can be done about it.

 

[Rawley]

Which court exactly?

DC. Your google broken?

 

[Rawley]

You people read far too much into decisions by the courts. When the decisions are read, it leaves one wondering wtf are you people always ranting and raving about.

9-0 bitch slap

 

[Rawley]

Yes, it does. If he orders Trump taken into custody and the states to erase his name on the ballots, nothing can be done about it.

Wow. Just ... wow.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Trump Immunity

Blaster "SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it."

Blaster: "Smith tried to bypass the appeals court and got slapped down by SCOTUS."

Moonglow: "It was a proper question and he directly petitioned the SC because it had federal matters at hand.

Rawley said: "Uh, the case is in Federal Court." Yesterday (27th) at 6:03 PM

Dante: "Which court exactly?"

Rawley: "DC. Your google broken?"

DC courts?

When you Rawley, claimed this, Smith had already filed with the appeals court in DC? Can you link to that?

Supreme Court won’t take up Trump’s criminal immunity, for now

The Supreme Court declined to take up whether President Trump can be prosecuted for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, punting for now the question on the limits of presidential immunity as…

thehill.com

While the Supreme Court agreed to expedited briefing over whether to formally take up the matter, the justices ultimately sided with Trump, who argued the case should first be considered by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which scheduled a Jan. 9 hearing.

The justices’ one-sentence order was unsigned and included no explanation.

Though a setback for Smith, the D.C. Circuit’s timeline is particularly speedy. In anticipation of the approaching hearing, Trump is due to submit his written brief tomorrow, and prosecutors are due to respond just before the new year.

In making his case to the Supreme Court, however, Smith noted there was no guarantee when the appeals court may rule on the matter.

And with lower court proceedings stayed while the appeals court weighs Trump’s immunity claims, any delay could mean kicking back a trial otherwise set for March 4 — a dynamic the judge overseeing the matter acknowledged as she paused the case.
“If jurisdiction is returned to this court, it will — consistent with its duty to ensure both a speedy trial and fairness for all parties — consider at that time whether to retain or continue the dates of any still-future deadlines and proceedings, including the trial scheduled for March 4, 2024,” U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote earlier this month.

 

[Rawley]

Trump Immunity

Blaster "SCOTUS won't rule on immunity. The Appeals Court should rule on it."

Blaster: "Smith tried to bypass the appeals court and got slapped down by SCOTUS."

Moonglow: "It was a proper question and he directly petitioned the SC because it had federal matters at hand.

Rawley said: "Uh, the case is in Federal Court." Yesterday (27th) at 6:03 PM

Dante: "Which court exactly?"

Rawley: "DC. Your google broken?"

DC courts?

When you Rawley, claimed this, Smith had already filed with the appeals court in DC? Can you link to that?

?? That's the other f-ked up thing about Comrade Smith. He won at the trial level. Why the fick would he be appealing a ruling he won on? Directly to the Supreme court, no less.

Trump file his appeal to the DC Court of Appeals last week

 

[Moonglow]

?? That's the other f-ked up thing about Comrade Smith. He won at the trial level. Why the fick would he be appealing a ruling he won on? Directly to the Supreme court, no less.

Trump file his appeal to the DC Court of Appeals last week

To answer a question, duh...

 

[Rawley]

To answer a question, duh...

I guess you could put it that way. What's with the "duh?"