Your in good humor this morning Dis. Was it the pancakes and sausage with real maple syrup?
January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15595
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
DC Circuit rules Trump does not have immunity.
https://apple.news/AA796zxPpQkWOF4NHxmDGxg
Hey, there’s still time to reinstitute that March 4 trial date.
https://apple.news/AA796zxPpQkWOF4NHxmDGxg
Hey, there’s still time to reinstitute that March 4 trial date.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3677.0.pdfnjbill wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:15 am DC Circuit rules Trump does not have immunity.
https://apple.news/AA796zxPpQkWOF4NHxmDGxg
Hey, there’s still time to reinstitute that March 4 trial date.
Trump has until 2/12/2024 to appeal or seek en banc review, or the court issues the mandate.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
This is nice:
"At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
Do people understand what Trump was asking for from the Courts?
"At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
Do people understand what Trump was asking for from the Courts?
-
- Posts: 34291
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
His defenders will let us know......Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:25 am This is nice:
"At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
Do people understand what Trump was asking for from the Courts?
“I wish you would!”
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Here is the judgment order:
https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1754 ... krM5UudTRQ
As I read this, and would welcome others to chime in, Trump needs to apply to the Supreme Court for a stay by February 12. If he does not, the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings.
If he does seek a stay from the Supreme Court, proceedings in the trial court will remain on hold until the Supreme Court acts on that request. Obviously, if they grant a stay, the trial court case will remain on hold.
Trump needs five votes from the Supreme Court to get a stay. My guess is it’s iffy, at best, that he has five votes.
He only needs four votes, however, for the Supreme Court to grant cert. Does he have them? Don’t know.
It is possible (I actually think likely) that if the Supreme Court were to grant cert, but deny a stay, the trial judge would still keep the trial court proceedings on hold pending a ruling by the Supreme Court.
I think it is exceedingly unlikely (near zero chance) that Trump gets en banc review from the DC Circuit.
https://x.com/steve_vladeck/status/1754 ... krM5UudTRQ
As I read this, and would welcome others to chime in, Trump needs to apply to the Supreme Court for a stay by February 12. If he does not, the matter returns to the trial court for further proceedings.
If he does seek a stay from the Supreme Court, proceedings in the trial court will remain on hold until the Supreme Court acts on that request. Obviously, if they grant a stay, the trial court case will remain on hold.
Trump needs five votes from the Supreme Court to get a stay. My guess is it’s iffy, at best, that he has five votes.
He only needs four votes, however, for the Supreme Court to grant cert. Does he have them? Don’t know.
It is possible (I actually think likely) that if the Supreme Court were to grant cert, but deny a stay, the trial judge would still keep the trial court proceedings on hold pending a ruling by the Supreme Court.
I think it is exceedingly unlikely (near zero chance) that Trump gets en banc review from the DC Circuit.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
We Rebelled against England over such things. Trump is not the State.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:30 amHis defenders will let us know......Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:25 am This is nice:
"At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”
Do people understand what Trump was asking for from the Courts?
-
- Posts: 34291
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/14/politics ... index.html
What do they know…. Must be FLP types or higher ups in management without boots on the ground.
What do they know…. Must be FLP types or higher ups in management without boots on the ground.
“I wish you would!”
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Weird. You just gotta wonder where all this heightened hostility is coming from? Why are judges feeling threatened? Just having trouble putting together the dots. Help?Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 8:22 pm https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/14/politics ... index.html
What do they know…. Must be FLP types or higher ups in management without boots on the ground.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Watched puppy bowl this year. They had a dog on who could spell. I kid you not. Human held up the following letters, more or less in this order: E R O C S. Human asked the dog to spell "score." The dog grabbed the letters in this order: S C O R E.
I'll bet if the letters U P T M R were held up and your question was posed to the dog, we'd get the correct answer.
I'll bet if the letters U P T M R were held up and your question was posed to the dog, we'd get the correct answer.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Jack asks the SCOTUS not to play Trump's delay game, allow the DC Circuit decision on immunity to stand, and the case to move forward in the federal district court:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... _FINAL.pdf
I believe this was due February 20, so the Special Counsel is trying to convey some urgency to the Court. Now we will see if the Court actually gives a damn about a potential felon and election denier running for high office...or if enough of them are in the bag for the GOP. A sad little crossroads.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... _FINAL.pdf
I believe this was due February 20, so the Special Counsel is trying to convey some urgency to the Court. Now we will see if the Court actually gives a damn about a potential felon and election denier running for high office...or if enough of them are in the bag for the GOP. A sad little crossroads.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
The S Ct has a conference day this Friday and next (and later ones, of course). Saw a talking head last night suggest that Smith filed so quickly so that Trump’s application for a stay could be placed on this Friday’s calendar, if Roberts is so inclined.
Haven’t seen anything that says the Supreme Court has given Trump a right to reply. Don’t know what the Supreme Court rules say about that.
The sword of Damocles is hovering over Trump‘s head.
Haven’t seen anything that says the Supreme Court has given Trump a right to reply. Don’t know what the Supreme Court rules say about that.
The sword of Damocles is hovering over Trump‘s head.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Interesting. The docket entries on ScotusBlog only show the Trump application for a stay.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:48 am The S Ct has a conference day this Friday and next (and later ones, of course). Saw a talking head last night suggest that Smith filed so quickly so that Trump’s application for a stay could be placed on this Friday’s calendar, if Roberts is so inclined.
Haven’t seen anything that says the Supreme Court has given Trump a right to reply. Don’t know what the Supreme Court rules say about that.
The sword of Damocles is hovering over Trump‘s head.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... -states-2/
An article references the deadline for Smith of February 20 by 4:00 PM, and nothing else.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/02/trum ... an-6-case/
Not sure if a Reply is allowed.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I’m looking at the first docket entry on Feb. 13 which says:
“Response to application (23A745) requested by The Chief Justice, due February 20, 2024, by 4pm (EST).”
Don’t see anything on the docket about a reply brief being permitted. I suppose Trump could always ask for leave if the rules don’t give him a reply of right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 3a745.html
“Response to application (23A745) requested by The Chief Justice, due February 20, 2024, by 4pm (EST).”
Don’t see anything on the docket about a reply brief being permitted. I suppose Trump could always ask for leave if the rules don’t give him a reply of right.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 3a745.html
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
DoJ is pushing for haste here and this reply's timing supports that. It is up to the Supremes - need 4 votes to take the case and 5 to issue a stay.njbill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 8:48 am The S Ct has a conference day this Friday and next (and later ones, of course). Saw a talking head last night suggest that Smith filed so quickly so that Trump’s application for a stay could be placed on this Friday’s calendar, if Roberts is so inclined.
Haven’t seen anything that says the Supreme Court has given Trump a right to reply. Don’t know what the Supreme Court rules say about that.
The sword of Damocles is hovering over Trump‘s head.
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I think the 4/5 issue is immaterial. For one thing, if there are four for cert, I could easily see a fifth joining for a stay. For another, if the S Ct grants cert, but not a stay, I believe the trial court will extend the stay presently in place.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Amicus briefs filed at virtually the same time as Trump application for a stay:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 20Stay.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Brief.pdf
Amicus filed yesterday just after Smith's filing:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0Brief.pdf
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
I certainly don’t miss working til midnight on briefs.
Edit: I see the link in my 9:03 a.m. post doesn’t work properly. Sorry about that. I typed in “Trump“ in the search box, which I think should get one to the correct docket.
Edit: I see the link in my 9:03 a.m. post doesn’t work properly. Sorry about that. I typed in “Trump“ in the search box, which I think should get one to the correct docket.
-
- Posts: 5385
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Trump's Reply to the SC's opposition to the request for stay:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... andate.pdf
The Brief does not initially address...Smith's comments on the efficacy of a stay under these circumstances. Instead, Trump's lawyers say Smith is a partisan, we can't have a trial before the election, there's too much discovery, etc., etc. Then, after all that irrelevant palaver, the brief says that there is a "fair prospect" of reversal.
This is entirely -- and I mean solely, only, exclusively -- about delaying Trump's day in Court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... andate.pdf
The Brief does not initially address...Smith's comments on the efficacy of a stay under these circumstances. Instead, Trump's lawyers say Smith is a partisan, we can't have a trial before the election, there's too much discovery, etc., etc. Then, after all that irrelevant palaver, the brief says that there is a "fair prospect" of reversal.
This is entirely -- and I mean solely, only, exclusively -- about delaying Trump's day in Court.
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15595
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?
Isn't delaying these procedures a strategic decision?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:28 pm Trump's Reply to the SC's opposition to the request for stay:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... andate.pdf
The Brief does not initially address...Smith's comments on the efficacy of a stay under these circumstances. Instead, Trump's lawyers say Smith is a partisan, we can't have a trial before the election, there's too much discovery, etc., etc. Then, after all that irrelevant palaver, the brief says that there is a "fair prospect" of reversal.
This is entirely -- and I mean solely, only, exclusively -- about delaying Trump's day in Court.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross: