"That’s speculative though, and the upshot may simply be as grim as it gets: The federal judicial system is incapable of defending the rule of law or even itself from a criminal defendant determined to take it down."
Precisely, which is why the DCC will uphold the district court's ruling on tRump immunity and "double jeopardy" claims, and why SCOTUS will deny cert...no need to relitigate US v Nixon, and a majority on the Court are done with tRump. It's crunch-time at the federal judiciary, and at all levels the threat of a King Donald is seen as very real and the need to take him down is palpable.
Thanks David for a thoughtful compilation. I always look forward to your take on judicial issues; clear eyed and objective is what they are. Thanks for including Adam Unikowsky's probabilities, very somber. I don't think anyone who's been paying attention thought trump would go to trial for January 6 in March; maybe these immunity developments with SCOTUS will let undecideds begin to realize that no trial, no matter how soon before the election, is going to keep trump from becoming President if they don't vote against him.
Query: So SCOTUS has rejected fast tracking the defendant’s appeal based on immunity.
First question: did they really say we’re going to delay any appeal from a CCA decision or did they essentially say only that they weren’t going to leapfrog the circuit court?
Which gets to my next question: did that decision mean that when an appeal is taken from the CCA decision(s), SCOTUS is going to slow walk it as it were and maybe even, based on timing, kick it over to the next term, hoping that Smith’s two cases get mooted by the election and possible post-election subverting and stuff?
A huge help -- I mean for getting a resolution sooner rather than later -- would be a superseding indictment in the MAL case alleging actual espionage i.e. selling or otherwise sharing secrets with third parties. (There’s still the mystery why MBS gave Jared $2b.)
To the first question: they only said they aren't going to leapfrog the appeals court.
To the second question: they didn't say anything, which leads the Professional Pearl Clutchers to put down their glass of Chardonnay, swallow the last bite of Brie, climb out of their Volvos and scream once again that the sky really is falling this time.
According to the people who do know these things, the court will decide it this term. the act that the decision was unanimous, with none of the three liberal justices saying anything, is taken as meaning there is no "conservative plot" going on inside the court on this, since they would have then dissented and told the world why.
Yeah, I thought SCOTUS’s decision had to be narrow, relating *only* to Smith’s application.
That said, my feeling is that they really want to decide whether a POTUS is or is not immune when after claiming voter fraud without any proof of significant fraud (which he has done since ca. 2015 or so) and then let’s say allowed J6 to happen is immune. The effect of that is to hold that a POTUS is above the law and I think that’s a bridge too far for them, Roberts particularly.
"The federal judicial system is incapable of defending the rule of law or even itself from a criminal defendant determined to take it down." aka sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground. I would also point out that what $CCROTUS does is issue opinions, there's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to do what they say. We've all become inured to their bs.
Thanks for writing today! Was missing our memo! Happy Holidays!
"That’s speculative though, and the upshot may simply be as grim as it gets: The federal judicial system is incapable of defending the rule of law or even itself from a criminal defendant determined to take it down."
Precisely, which is why the DCC will uphold the district court's ruling on tRump immunity and "double jeopardy" claims, and why SCOTUS will deny cert...no need to relitigate US v Nixon, and a majority on the Court are done with tRump. It's crunch-time at the federal judiciary, and at all levels the threat of a King Donald is seen as very real and the need to take him down is palpable.
I wish I shared your optimism...
Thanks David for a thoughtful compilation. I always look forward to your take on judicial issues; clear eyed and objective is what they are. Thanks for including Adam Unikowsky's probabilities, very somber. I don't think anyone who's been paying attention thought trump would go to trial for January 6 in March; maybe these immunity developments with SCOTUS will let undecideds begin to realize that no trial, no matter how soon before the election, is going to keep trump from becoming President if they don't vote against him.
Query: So SCOTUS has rejected fast tracking the defendant’s appeal based on immunity.
First question: did they really say we’re going to delay any appeal from a CCA decision or did they essentially say only that they weren’t going to leapfrog the circuit court?
Which gets to my next question: did that decision mean that when an appeal is taken from the CCA decision(s), SCOTUS is going to slow walk it as it were and maybe even, based on timing, kick it over to the next term, hoping that Smith’s two cases get mooted by the election and possible post-election subverting and stuff?
A huge help -- I mean for getting a resolution sooner rather than later -- would be a superseding indictment in the MAL case alleging actual espionage i.e. selling or otherwise sharing secrets with third parties. (There’s still the mystery why MBS gave Jared $2b.)
To the first question: they only said they aren't going to leapfrog the appeals court.
To the second question: they didn't say anything, which leads the Professional Pearl Clutchers to put down their glass of Chardonnay, swallow the last bite of Brie, climb out of their Volvos and scream once again that the sky really is falling this time.
White wine, Brie, and a Volvo...you're showing your age, my man! That's old-school "yuppie" putdown material.
Mot of them are still yuppie morons, just younger versions. Tinny toy Teslas for Volvos.
Are you certain that any appeal would necessarily be heard and decided this term?
According to the people who do know these things, the court will decide it this term. the act that the decision was unanimous, with none of the three liberal justices saying anything, is taken as meaning there is no "conservative plot" going on inside the court on this, since they would have then dissented and told the world why.
Thanks!
SCOTUS didn't say anything really. Only a one sentence ruling they were not going to
take up Jack Smith's request
to basically leap frog the DC
Apellate Court. There were no dissents from anyone on
SCOTUS. Thoughts are, wait
and see how DC rules on this
after oral arguments 1/9.
FL/Mar a Lardo - Smith waiting for opportunity to take Cannon to 11th circuit
for slap down or removal.
Jared Kushner - His name
and that 2 billion have been
popping up a lot. Especially
with his previous financial
history. If we maintain the
current status quo of the
current Presidency, take back
the Congress and keep the
Senate, gee ya never know
about good old Jared K.
Yeah, I thought SCOTUS’s decision had to be narrow, relating *only* to Smith’s application.
That said, my feeling is that they really want to decide whether a POTUS is or is not immune when after claiming voter fraud without any proof of significant fraud (which he has done since ca. 2015 or so) and then let’s say allowed J6 to happen is immune. The effect of that is to hold that a POTUS is above the law and I think that’s a bridge too far for them, Roberts particularly.
Of course, time will tell.
Thanks for the response, Victoria.
Agree Manuela. 👍
"The federal judicial system is incapable of defending the rule of law or even itself from a criminal defendant determined to take it down." aka sweet dreams and flying machines in pieces on the ground. I would also point out that what $CCROTUS does is issue opinions, there's nothing in the Constitution that says we have to do what they say. We've all become inured to their bs.
Runfast, perhaps SCOTUS et al are thinking about what will, or could, happen to them
under an authoritarian dictatorship. One of the first
targets of that type regime is
the top Judiciary. Which side of the coin would their best
billionaire friends flip to? Not
all are low life grifters.
True, it's a 6-3 split. So at least 3 of them will side with justice.