Is it possible that they figured this is the fastest path? Quick ruling by a lower court, then a refusal to hear the claim could be faster than actually taking up the issue (I don’t know if that’s actually right, I think I’m asking)
I’ve said this before. If you want to know what the dankest and most rabid Trump supporters think, the comments section in Breitbart.
And I’ve personally validated that the opinions expressed there are compatible with the hardcore MAGAs I know IRL.
Go back further up the thread. Several of us were speculating just that, that they denied Smith’s motion to expedite because they intent to deny cert.
My question was about an alternative hypothesis that they intend to grant cert because they will want to be seen to be acting on such a critical issue; but that they intend to act fairly quickly rather than pander to Trump’s delaying tactics. Under that hypothesis, it doesn’t seem to make much sense that they would have denied Smith’s motion to expedite.
Sorry- these threads move to fast to keep up.
I agree to a degree, but also that ship has sailed. The damage to our democracy has been done when Trump was elected in 2016, everything that happened after that is the entirely predictable outcome of that, the best we can expect now is for the judicial system to show that it can punish someone who blatantly tried to bring down our system of government.
Yeah I’d rather Trump lose every state by a landslide. bring the down-ticket GOP candidates down with him, and then get convicted, but I’d take him narrowly losing while in prison for a felony on election day. That’s just where we are as a country. the least bad option is the best we can hope for 
Depends on which way the wind’s blowing.
No that’s where they play basketball.
Also this is not another outrageous scandal that should rightly bring down any political candidate, but which we all know Trump and the MAGAts will ignore. These are four felony trials, with 91 felony charges, that is a big deal. What Trump, the GOP, the MAGAts and the press say or do is not important, it only matters what a jury of his peers says. If he’s convicted he’s going to prison, for a long time.
The problem is what happens if he is elected president? Can we have a president run the country from a prison cell? Maybe technically yes but practically no.
Not to mention whether he can pardon himself for any of this.
That MAGAts are seemingly ok with such a prospect says a lot about them.
There is a pretty good chance we’ll find this out (I mean, it’s more likely he either won’t get convicted or a conviction will mean he doesn’t win the election, but there is a non-zero chance that come January the president elect is in prison for a felony). But there is no reason a felon should be let out of prison because he has difficulty doing his job while incarcerated.
That is the key point. IMO the point where SCOTUS says “Yup go ahead pardon yourself” is point where we cease to have a democracy in any meaningful sense.
I respectfully disagree. Since 2015, possibly in his life, Trump has lost/faced consequences exactly one time - when Biden beat him last election. That’s the only thing that will stop Trump and the politicians from supporting him - having the voters prefer someone else. That’s it.
Separate from our democracy, yes, it’s important to try and hold him accountable for his crimes. I don’t think these crimes will matter to this election (in broader history, yes, but not right now/months from now).
(bolding mine). Maybe this. Maybe. The reality is most people don’t even know about it - not really. Criminal trials can only be an issue if you are aware of them and believe they are fair. Most of my friends and family will be voting for Trump because he’s on the Republican ticket and they will not be aware of what criminal things he actually did (they will be more aware of what Biden’s DOJ is accusing him of in whatever way “Fox News” is framing it - probably like a Biden scandal to be honest). If it were someone else on the ticket, they would vote for someone else. They will never vote for Biden. It would be like trying to talk them out of being Christian and that they should be Muslim instead and to formalize that decision on a ballot. That’s the bubble we’re dealing with. It’s a lot to pierce assuming it gets on their radar in a neutral way. But maybe.
So yea, better to convince an agnostic (ie, someone who has never voted; young; etc.) to vote for Biden and hope that gets you more than Trump will have. Hopefully this isn’t too much of a rant lol.
I thought it was a great post with a fantastic analogy.
A friend who was a SCt clerk told me at the time Clarence was quite the power lifter and an absolute bull on the b-ball court. I believe his specific words were along the lines of, “You do’t want to draw a charge on him!”
I realize folk way smarter and attentive than I have suggested timelines, but if I were betting, I’d be comfortable placing a considerable wager on there NOT being any additional verdicts after Engoran’s prior to election day. And I’m not sanguine about any appeals being ruled on promptly. The Supremes can basically do whatever they want on whatever timetable they wish, and Courts of Appeals are not much better. Yeah, we all might think these matters ought to be settled promptly, but I’ve experienced some extremely lengthy delays between briefing, argument, and eventual order and judgment in the federal courts. There are generally no impediments to their moving promptly. But if they want to take their sweet time, I’m not sure what would force them the move more quickly.
IMO&E courts move glacially WRT complex litigation, and there are countless opportunities for a party to delay. Not saying any judge/panel COULDN’T move things along in a more timely fashion. Just that I have consistently been disappointed at what I have perceived as excessively unhurried schedules. I suspect that will especially be the case WRT Trump, with the multiple complex pending cases and the desire to guard against easily appealable issues.
My biggest hope, tho, is simply that the steady drip, drip, drip as the various cases move forward will succeed in swaying enough not totally batshit Repubs/independents to sway the key states Biden-wards. As the news keeps coming out, consistently critical of Trump’s behavior, and he and his attys consistently act in less-than-impressive manners, I’m hoping the US population is not so far gone that enough people will realize they do not want this clown to have a second term.
Call me a cockeyed optimist!
What I think will ultimately happen is that John Roberts splits the baby. The court will find that Donald can be on the ballots but will not grant cert for the immunity case. I think they’re deathly afraid of appearing partisan (most of the time) so they’ll throw a bone to each side here.
In 1920 Eugene Debs ran for President on the Socialist Party of America ticket while he was in federal prison for sedition. He got 3.4% of the vote, which was the third-highest percentage of the vote the party ever received.
I think now that conservatives have a solid majority on the court they are embracing partisanship without a care at all about appearances. They will happily push their agenda as far and as fast as they can manage with no concern for anything else.
I’m not really sure what you think we’re disagreeing on. I agree that a trial alone cannot stop Trump/MAGA if the voters want a fascist dictator. But the trials are an input into that voting decision, placing the issue front and center for anyone who is still reachable with real information.
I don’t see the relevance of describing the set of people whose vote could not conceivably be changed by anything. What matters is people at the margin whose votes can be changed, or as you say new voters, and whether the trials may influence them.
Yeah I think its almost a given that the SCOTUS will not allow Trump to be removed from the ballot because of the 14th Amendment* IMO the odds of any other verdict are so low that I don’t even factor them into my “odds of trump becoming president again” calculation…
The question is, what will they decide in the immunity case? Everything I’ve read says they will likely decide not to hear it, but talk is cheap and internet opinions even cheaper.
* - To be honest I would not entirely disagree with this decision, I generally call bs on the “if we do this to Trump then the GOP will do it to every democrat going forward” argument, but in this case I’m not so sure. If all it takes is a state judge to say, without any criminal trial or conviction of a crime, that a candidate had taken part in an insurrection for them to be removed from the ballot. Then that is going to be used against other candidates who have not actually taken part in an insurrection.
I really hate to Godwinize this thread, but German law forbade a lot of things that the military ended up doing because they didn’t want to be on the receiving end of a bullet. It didn’t take all that long for them to fall into line with the boss’s demands, either. A mindset of “it can’t happen here” is dangerous.
last night, i believe it was on cnn. it was suggested if he is convicted in the federal charges, he would most likely be at FPC Pensacola (bop.gov) . the theory being that he would be housed closest to where he would be released after serving his time.
I mean its not a random hypothetical from an internet discussion forum, its an actual verbatim question by a judge in the second highest appeal court in the US, talking to a former POTUS’ criminal lawyers. I think its OK to quote it as an example.
You are almost certainly correct about Seal Team 6 as is it currently constituted, but that should not be the only thing in the US government and legal system preventing a POTUS assassinating his political rival (hell I’m sure Sammy the Bull knows someone who has no such scruples about wacking someone for Trump). And after the third or forth term of Trump as commander in chief, I would not put money on the rule of law being so strongly enforced in the military.