I’m sure they’ll rule against Loose Cannon- but won’t this get appealed to Supreme Court?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Yeah, that shit did not go well at all for team Trump.
Judge Pryor to Trump lawyer Jim Trusty: If you didn’t even argue the 1st Richey factor, what are we even doing here?
I did not say crack team of lawyers.
On purpose.
When Trump is involved I usually read “crack lawyers” in the same context as “crack whores”.
Although I suppose I could have been reading the latter all wrong and they were referring to the best prostitutes in the business.
I’ve had this conversation before but I think it was in another thread. Yes, Trumpie will likely try to take an unfavourable ruling to the SC, but the SC has lately shown a reluctance to get dragged down into Trump’s bullshit. They still have to protect whatever remains of their tattered reputation.
i heard excerpts of the arguments. whee doggies, that did not go well for the trump side.
Yesterday they rejected his attempt to block the House order for his tax records.
It’s too bad that aerial photos of his gaudy golf club have become shorthand for this whole sordid mess, but what else could they use?
I think they should use a picture of Trump in a burning dumpster. Pretty sure I’ve seen such a thing on the interwebs.
I know I’ve seen Trump’s face on a burning dumpster.
Perfect for Christmas giving.
They’ve always been reluctant to be dragged into his BS. I don’t think he’s ever had a favorable result when taking something to SCOTUS. Now, the Republicans have had some (major) rulings in their favor since packing the court, but that hasn’t helped Trump at all on a personal level.
Anytime someone talks about Trump appealing something up to the top of the chain, it’s a safe bet that it’s going to go badly. Whatever “Teflon Don” legal ability he has doesn’t seem to work there at all.
Some of his SCOTUS failures are documented in this article, which you might note is from 2 years ago. So this is definitely nothing new.
Note that the article covers things that were about his administration as well as matters personal to him, but I’m specifically talking about rulings that affected him personally. I do think one quote in that article was pretty informative.
“Once a Supreme Court justice gets appointed, they have life tenure and can do what they want, rather than what the people who appointed them want them to do,” said Harry Sandick, a former federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
His legal strategy has always been “throw lawyers at the opposing party until they get fed up or go broke, and settle with a sealed deal.” He never wants to get to an actual ruling, he wants you to bail out before that happens. This approach doesn’t work when the opposing party is a federal prosecutor with almost literally infinite patience and a bottomless budget.
He’s like a Ping Pong champion at Wimbledon.
That made me laugh.
I heard the whole thing on Mike Dunford/questauthority’s Lawsplainin’ Twitch stream yesterday. There were multiple pauses for extended hysterical laughter and discussions of just how badly burned Trusty (what a name for a lawyer!) was by the 3 judges.
Because that’s what I needed-another way to hear about how Trump 'n Trusty screwed things up. Gee, Thanks! shakes a fist in mock anger
He has had quite a bit of success on a policy level (example), but not on an individual level. Which demonstrates that the supreme court is dominated by McConnell judges not Trump judges. With the adjustment that unlike McConnell they have no need to suck up to Trump to get reelected.
That’s my point. They are sympathetic to Republicans, and I don’t think they see him as really being part of the establishment.