Honky Donkey.
I can’t un-think it.
Hijacks in the Pit are just tradition.
IANAL, but if I understand this, the whole case was based on Trump having falsified business records in a conspiracy to affect the outcome of a Federal election. It’s this latter part that raised it to a felony prosecution.
So the Trumpistas are arguing that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over whether a state can prosecute election fraud conspiracy with respect to a Federal election, regardless of the state’s own laws on federal elections.
I agree it sounds weak. But then we had Alito quoting the “Gentleman’s Magazine”, an 18th century English periodical, to justify the Dobbs ruling. IIRC that was in the draft opinion, but I don’t know if it was still included in the final opinion.
Worth noting again, he did not have to actually commit the conspiracy part of things. It was sufficient to show he falsified business records with merely the intent of committing or covering up a crime. The actual commission of any crime that was covered up was not necessary. And that he knowingly played a part in falsifying those records with the intent to cover up other misdeeds was shown to the satisfaction of the jury (and pretty clear to anybody with half a brain).
Any election fraud prosecution should be irrelevant (and I’ve yet to see NY state suggest it will go for such a prosecution) but given the big stretches SCOTUS has made, confidence is low.
Of course, for the most part with regards to Trump, they seem to be mostly delaying things for him. They have yet to actually rule in his favor in anything but that’s rather like repeatedly offering the scorpion your hand because it has yet to sting.
It wasn’t though. There were three possible ways they were elevated to felonies; campaign finance violations, election interference, and/or tax evasion.
I’d think that an appellate court open to the “stay in your lane” argument would think even offering it as an option tainted the instructions.
I still think it’s weak tea. Can’t states prevent underage or foreign-born candidates from getting on the ballot? Isn’t that enforcing federal law?
Showing no remorse, and guilty of gag order violations and much contempt for the judge, there’s a rather good chance he will face some jail time, or similar humiliation. The judge seems determined to be fair and it would be unfair not to incarcerate him.
But punishing him isn’t the important goal. (Hundreds of thousands of other crimes go unpunished.) Fans of America and democracy pray that the conviction reduces the risk of fascist take-over in the November election. (But prediction markets do NOT think it will.)
They’ve done the absolute maximum that they could have done to help Trump.
They couldn’t literally give him “shoot a man on 5th avenue” rights as it would explicitly be saying the president is king and above the law. There would be massive repercussions for Trump and the SC, and is not seriously on the table.
What they have done of course is stall this to the maximum possible extent – they could’ve taken the case when Jack Smith requested, or they could have refused the case. Instead they waited for it to bubble through the appeals, then have taken an absurd amount of time to schedule in oral arguments and come to a decision. And of course in the hearing itself, for the first time ever, they insisted that no discussion of the case itself would be allowed, Alito was the most keen to exclude details of the case.
They are very much in the tank for Trump, there’s no “on the other hand” here.
I have Honky Donkey in my The Little Rascals DVD set.
No, it’s enforcing a state law that conforms with federal law. I don’t think that’s the same thing.
States use the qualifications as laid out in the US Constitution, and then will add their own requirements. For example, here are requirements for my own state of Washington:
It lists the requirements as laid out in the constitution, and then goes on to include things like not allowing someone to appear on the ballot twice for different positions, or not allowing someone who tried and failed to be nominated to a major party to run as an independent (the so-called “Sore Loser” law).
But I don’t think that because the state follows federal laws, that counts as “enforcing” them; it just prevents them from allowing someone on the ballot who would be deemed ineligible if they won the electoral vote of the state, because that would just be a waste of time. Or think about it this way; if you sell cigarettes and you refuse to sell them to someone under 18, you aren’t “enforcing” the law, you’re just following it.
That’s a reasonable take.
Yes, my wild guess is that the SC will delay any decision until after the election. Then, if Trump is elected, they will rule that presidents (and indeed, presidents-for-life) are fully immune, and cannot be prosecuted for anything, ever.
If Biden wins, they will rule that current presidents are NOT immune from any prosecution whatsoever.
I don’t think they’d rule that way but hopefully Biden wins and we never find out.
That’s pretty unlikely. It would be a major departure from the norms and they’ve given no indication they want to do that.
In fact it’s fairly likely they’ll rule this week. Unfortunately they could rule to send it back to the lower court in a way that ensures trial won’t start until next year year. It’s not guaranteed though, it’s perfectly possible they will rule in a way that will mean trial starts before the election or before the inauguration at least.
Whatever happens, despite being outrageous, there is nothing the SCOTUS’ behavior that’s given any indication they will find for Trump either in the immunity case or the NY appeal
What if Alito’s wife tells him to find for Trump?
He can probably convince Thomas but he needs to find a few others and that probably isn’t going to work. Even the justices Trump appointed don’t seem to like him much.
They don’t need to like him. They just need to see him as a tool to achieve a theocratic dictatorship. Once that’s established, he can be replaced by the next dictator, or once he loses it completely, by a “regent” who controls the power while Trump plays with sharpies.
Well, let’s just say that they’ve more often than not ruled against him. So I’m not sure what role he plays in their attempt to “achieve a theocratic dictatorship”.
I can see them dragging their feet so that things become moot for the purposes of this election so they avoid controversy.
They have, because they’re wanting to appear fair minded.
But in the clutch, you watch, they’ll line right up with Trump is my prediction.
I’m a little surprised anyone thinks it comes out any other way, to be honest.
Seriously.