LaxPower Back-Up Stick

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:15 am

Your in good humor this morning Dis. Was it the pancakes and sausage with real maple syrup?

DC Circuit rules Trump does not have immunity.

https://apple.news/AA796zxPpQkWOF4NHxmDGxg

Hey, there’s still time to reinstitute that March 4 trial date.

njbill 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.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 3677.0.pdf

Trump has until 2/12/2024 to appeal or seek en banc review, or the court issues the mandate.

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?

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?

His defenders will let us know......

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.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:30 am

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?

His defenders will let us know......

We Rebelled against England over such things. Trump is not the State.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting. The docket entries on ScotusBlog only show the Trump application for a stay.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 9:09 am 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Isn't delaying these procedures a strategic decision?