It would have been nice of the Supreme Court to actually tell us why they rejected Smith’s request. Let’s hope the appeals court goes quickly and the Supreme Court doesn’t decide to wait a while when it’s their turn again.
Was there any expert conjecture about how progressive Justices versus conservative Justices would respond re: the writ? Was either side expected to lean one way or another?
I guess I’m wondering the split on the denial, or if there was one.
There’s a pretty good Legal Eagle video on the topic of immunity. Here is the part that talks about Jack Smith’s attempt to skip straight to SCOTUS.
Essentially, Jack Smith had to ask for this to expedited, was asking for an exception to wait for a judgement from a lower court because it was a case of “imperative public importance”. All that SCOTUS has to do is say that in their opinion it doesn’t rise to that level and that the normal process can continue as usual. I’m not sure it’s necessary to explain why an exception was granted; rather, the burden typically is in making the case for the exception.
I’m no legal expert, despite having seen most episodes of LA Law, but I would have expected the court to at least address Smith’s arguments. It might not be required, but something.
Generally the Court doesn’t issue reasons for denial of cert, and generally there are no reasons given for dissents from denial. There are exceptions, but that’s the general approach.
It’s my understanding that even if the appeals court does rule quickly, then Trump’s lawyers will first ask the full appeals court to rehear the case, and then after that, Trump will have 90 days to lodge a final appeal to the supreme court. And THEN the Supreme Court can sit on it for quite a while.
Trump has successfully delayed this case until after the election, which was his plan all along. The Supreme Court just gave him exactly what he wanted.
I’ll just have to put my faith in the American people to do the right thing and prevent Trump from winning the next election.
You can put your faith in one hand, and crap in the other and see which one fills up faster…
I’m not falling for that one again.
I agree with your first sentence above.
As for your second sentence – probably. But there is another possibility we can hope for until it is likely dashed in a few weeks.
Suppose that most of the justices already read the Colorado decision. I think this is highly plausible! And suppose that most of them were impressed by the majority ruling. OK, less plausible. But if they are thinking of declaring Trump an insurrectionist for ballot access purposes, they are going to be too busy next month to spend a lot of time on the Jack Smith situation. And if they think they will actually end Trump’s political career, there is no reason to rush his trials.
Four, if the shit hits the fan, and somebody gets thrown under the bus, are these lawyers going to have your best interests at heart or the best interests of the guy who is (not) paying them.
Never mind
Some amazing new reporting regarding the fake electors’ documents, the lengths that were gone to in order to deliver them to Pence, and how deeply involved various congress critters were. Including audio recordings of Chesebro dishing dirt.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/28/politics/recordings-trump-team-fake-elector-ballots/index.html
Holy fuck, that’s incriminating stuff. Or it should be.
I knew there were some congress persons who were in it up to their necks and would sooner or later be charged. Ron Johnson and Scott Perry are a great start. There are others (I’m looking at you, Paul Gosar, Andy Biggs, Chuck Grassley, Tommy Tuberville… the list grows long).
Such traitorous, criminal behavior. I hope the jail terms are long. I don’t see any protection for them under the Speech and Debate Clause.
I’m quivering in anticipation. 
I fear we will quiver together for quite some time, but I believe we’ll eventually get there.
The whole “we just need to delay for 24 hours” is starting to make sense.
These are the people that intended to raise objections in various states to delay the counting of the EC votes, correct?
What crime can they be charged with, exactly? The right to raise objections is part of the procedure. What they did, or planned to do, isn’t actually illegal, is it?
No. I encourage you to read the article linked to by @MulderMuffin. It will give you a very clear idea of what potential crimes they committed.
In short, they actively worked together to put counterfeit slates of electors into Mike Pence’s hands on January 6th.
Such acts could include criminal charges of election fraud and conspiracy to commit election fraud.
Legal actions can become illegal, depending on the context. Shooting a gun at the paper target on a shooting range is legal. Shooting a gun at the paper target because you think that one of the range workers is behind the target at the time is attempted murder.
Raising objections to a vote count is legal. Raising objections to a vote count in order to overthrow the system of government of the US is insurrection.