That is definitely an option. All that would require is for them to not add it to the docket for this year’s session. But that would be absolutely be considered a political decision (more so given the nature of this weeks ruling). Something that has historically been avoided. But with this SCOTUS not something that can be ruled out.
If the want to enable the fascist dictatorship, they can certainly find a way to do so. We’re hoping that’s not what they want.
But he would not (most likely) be allowed free while he appeals, it is generally only allowed for minor crimes where there is strong chance the convicted person would run out their entire sentence in prison while waiting for a judgement in the appeal
For example Peter Navarro was not allowed free while appealing his contempt conviction but Steve Bannon for his lesser conviction.
Given the current state of things, I would not discount the chance of Trump being elected even if he were incarcerated. I’d hope that the USSC would do whatever is necessary to avoid this possibility but I
also agree with griffin1977. Nothing can be ruled out with the current Supreme Court.
I wouldn’t rule it out definitely, but it’s also not super likely either. IMO probably being convicted of a felony and sent to prison would be enough to keep Trump out of the Whitehouse in 2024. The hardcore MAGA faithful would vote for him but that has never been a majority of the electorate
The fact it’s not “being struck by an asteroid while riding a unicycle” levels of likelihood is absolutely insane however.
IMO that’s really all there is to it.
Within the normal bounds of USSC discretion and timing they can probably accomplish either goal. If they’re willing to stretch their reach a bit they force either outcome.
So what do they want?
I hope this guy is full of it, but I found a guy who thinks the Supreme Court will rule in favor of presidential immunity.
First, the D.C. Circuit opinion is almost impossible to square with the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity from civil lawsuits based on official acts, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That case granted former presidents absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts within the “outer perimeter” of their duties of office.
Am I wrong to say First, the D.C. Circuit opinion is almost impossible to square with the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity from civil lawsuits based on official acts, Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That case granted former presidents absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts within the “outer perimeter” of their duties of office.
Am I wrong to say so what? This isn’t a civil suit.
Second, they suggest that because this is the first time that a former president has been criminally indicted in our nation’s history, there is little likelihood of future partisan prosecutions of former presidents. There are two obvious answers to this point: First, that the lack of such a history suggests there is a settled understanding that presidents have immunity from prosecution for their official acts. Second, the unprecedented bout of lawfare against former President Trump—four criminal indictments in four different jurisdictions in a little over four months—augurs a future that will be full of partisan presidential indictments.
I don’t think the lack of history suggests a settled understanding of presidential immunity, it suggests that up until recently there had not been a president displaying such blatant criminal behavior.
Is there really a chance that the Supremes will do what he suggests?
Addendum (yes, and…): I want to see him in the orange jumpsuit, denied access to his bronzer and hair products, and photos of said appearance circulated far and wide.
I think it’s worth noting that he contributes to The Federalist Society and his LinkedIn profile shows that he works for “Ron DeSantis for President”. I wouldn’t put a lot of weight on what he wrote, he certainly isn’t going to give an unbiased scholarly opinion on it.
Sure, there’s a chance. I had to google the guy. He’s with the Federalists Society. But I won’t hold that against him. He worked for a good lawfirm in L.A., and did well at Georgetown law. So, he’s not an idiot. Still, I’m not sure any of that qualifies him to predict what the Supreme Court will do. His example of the Obama-ordered drone attack that killed someone isn’t really on point, since I don’t believe that was a criminal act.
The fact that Obama was acting as the President and commander-in-chief wouldn’t matter: His official acts as commander-in-chief would be “constrained by and subject to 'criminal statutes of general application,” and he could be prosecuted.
He couldn’t be prosecuted because, unlike Trump, he didn’t commit a crime.
Moreover the fact that Ford issued a pardon for Nixon, the previous “most criminal president”, suggests that at that point in time people generally thought the president didn’t have immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while in office.
I’m not saying wiki is the best source for complicated legal arguments, but here’s what it says re Nixon v. Fitzgerald:
Nixon v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a US Supreme Court case that dealt with immunity from prosecution of government officials performing discretionary functions when their actions did not violate clearly-established law.
[T]he Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The Court, however, emphasized that the President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.
(emphasis mine). Trump violated clearly established criminal law while in office. Maybe I’m missing a major detail, so I’m all for being informed why this is not directly on point.
In addition to what other have said:
I would guess they will say it is a matter of “exceptional importance” that needs a full appeals court en banc go-over before getting to the Supreme Court. Does anyone know what the delay should be there?
P.S. I’m not predicting there really will be an en banc go-over, but doesn’t it take time just to shoot down that request?
It has been a long time since I practiced in the federal courts of appeals, but my recollection is that, yes, en banc review can be a LENGTHY process. I do not know why a party desiring delay would not go that route, instead of going right to the Supremes. Heck, I think they could generally request panel rehearing first - with such petition due 14 days after entry of judgment (possibly 45 days depending on the parties). FRAP 40 I believe. Same timetable for requesting en banc, I believe.
But, like I said, it has been a long time since I looked at any of those rules. They are usually pretty clear cut, and the 7th Cir always had them readily available on their website.
If “they” means SCOTUS, I don’t think SCOTUS can order it back for an en-banc review to happen. But that’s never occurred to me. They did deny cert already and said go to the appellate court first, but I don’t think they can decide the level of review - that’s up to Trump. Someone should be able to answer this fairly easily.
If “they” means Trump, then no. Technically, of course they can, but the Judgment said requesting an en banc review would not delay anything. That’s somewhat telling that it would probably be denied. That’s normally not the case - a request for en banc review would pause it and Trump would take full advantage of that delay. It’s also telling that the 3 appellate Judges would have the balls to say don’t bother with en banc unless they knew the other appellate Justices were cool with missing out. No way to know, but it would appear that way.
For clarity, imagine if this appellate court were made up the SC Justices. Imagine if say Sotomayor, Jackson, and Roberts wrote the opinion and then effectively said don’t bother with an en banc review - just go ask SC for Cert. Thomas would not be cool with that. I’m pretty sure Thomas would love to weigh in and have a scathing dissenting opinion he would love to offer and be rightly pissed 3 Justices changed the rules up. But that didn’t happen and I’d guess it’s because the entire DC Circuit is fine with the opinion (or at least fine with steering away from an en banc review).
If Chutkan proceeds (April? June? dunno), what would be the likely sentence for these four charges? Has anyone seen guidelines, or even just reasonable guesses?
I’ll just say first of all that despite Roberts’ incessant claims about Supreme Court impartiality, their rulings – at least in recent decades – have invariably been both political and strategic. By “strategic” I mean that they’ve come under increasing scrutiny in the Roberts era, and Roberts understands the need to avoid a pattern of blatantly partisan rulings, as probably do they all except for Thomas and Alito, who between them understand nothing at all.
So the fact that the Supremes will almost certainly disallow states from excluding Trump from the ballot makes me much more confident that they’ll also refuse to grant cert to the immunity claim and let the DC Court of Appeals ruling stand. Besides the fact that it’s such an obviously correct ruling, it also serves as a fine demonstration of alleged impartiality.
OK, Newsweek answered my questions… Sort of. These are maximums, but weighed together, I could easily see her imposing a 10 to 20 year sentence, due to the severity of the crimes, and her past sentencing history:
Trump faces a maximum 20-year sentence on each of two counts of obstructing Congress’s confirmation of President Joe Biden’s election victory, and 10 years for conspiracy against the right to vote, and 5 years for defrauding the United States.
The obstruction issue is before the Supreme Court now, and depends on their ruling on whether those charges go forward.
This… really pisses me off. SCOTUS is likely going to use their power to gut the charges against Trump.
I knew it would be bad when Hillary lost in 2016 and would not be able to make appointments to SCOTUS. I never imagined it could get this bad.
I would love for them to disappoint me in this, but they never do. This is a partisan and corrupt court.