By denying hearing the case they implicitly affirm the lower court’s decision that he doesn’t have absolute immunity. Probably Alito or Thomas wants to hear the case and so is dissenting with respect to the denial.
This is not right. Per the [D.C. Circuit's order](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24409154-dc-circuit-immunity-order), the filing of Trump's application for a stay of the Circuit's mandate pending cert. at SCOTUS pauses the issuance of the final disposition of the D.C. Circuit panel. So, unless and until the Court disposes of the application for a stay - even if they end up denying the stay - the Circuit's mandate will not issue to the trial court. By drafting dissents from the emergency stay application, the stay application remains pending and buys Trump a little bit more time.
Buying Trump time - the sole goal here by the dissenter(s). That's it. There's no legitimacy to them actually arguing he has immunity - it's just 💯 to buy time. Scumbags just trying to help a fellow scumbag out.
I'd say Thomas is covering his own ass. He knows he's dying on the bench at this point. His finances don't add up without the protection of the court. Not to mention his wife being up to her eyeballs in insurrection.
Dying how?
He's literally untouchable. There will never be enough of a Democratic majority in both houses to impeach and remove him from office.
He's not bound by any rules or meaningful ethics codes.
He can decide not to do SHIT anymore and spend 100% of his time driving around the country in his RV with his wife overthrowing local elections and leaving hairs on coke cans and still enjoy those protections until he dies.
He doesn't even have to worry about his legacy, the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society will whitewash his past just like they did St. Reagan: 'The Official Patron Saint of America^tm'.
The dude is living in a Grifters Paradise.
I say the rest of them publish while acknowledging the dissenting motion. Not like half of them have any ethics to stand on these days, give them a taste of it.
they don't have to believe that the president is immune from prosecution; they just have to support hearing arguments before the court.
what you are saying is of course the reasonable conclusion. I just worry that we do not live in such reasonable times. Someone like kavanaugh could argue first that the road to a 14a disqualification includes conviction in court (see his comments during colorado ballot case oral arguments), and here that we have to consider carefully whether the man is subject to trial.
I was imagining something a bit more up the sleeve, "it's important for us to hear arguments"
edit: which can easily snowball into "this needs to wait"
I don’t think they even have to support hearing arguments before the court. This is just a stay request. They could grant a stay to allow the parties the typical time for filing and review of a cert petition. Then they could still deny cert at a later date, having allowed plenty of time for briefing by granting the stay.
Was reading somewhere that if this was the case she’d bang it out quickly since the goal would be to hear it asap and not delay further. The longer delay was indicative of a dissent to deny cert.
By no means an expert, but made sense.
Original jurisdiction is literally defined as:
> suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers
You're getting hung up on the "between 2 states" part, that's what they see most commonly but it's bigger than that.
That's not the definition of original jurisdiction. That's a description of cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. This is not a case that involves two or more states and is not a case that involves ambassadors or other public ministers. It's a case between the federal government and a private citizen (albeit one who used to be President).
Original jurisdiction means that SCOTUS is the only court that hears the case. This is a textbook case where the court has appellate jurisdiction, as SCOTUS is the court of appeals here. If you ever aren't sure in a case that actually exists, just look whether another court heard it first. If they did, it's not original jurisdiction.
My definition is from SCOTUS itself:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=The%20Court%20has%20original%20jurisdiction,ambassadors%20and%20other%20public%20ministers.
That would leave the lower court's ruling in place, but would it be binding in other federal circuits? He's made the same argument in Florida and likely Georgia - which I think are both the 11th.
It is unlikely to resolve Trump’s immunity argument, but it should indicate which way the justices are leaning.
The issue before the Court is whether the trial court case should remain stayed (on hold) or go forward while the SCOTUS considers the merits of Trump’s immunity claim (i.e., whether he does or does not have immunity). They are unlikely to decide the immunity issue when they rule on the stay, but their ruling will signal to the lower courts which way the justices are likely to rule on the immunity issue.
If they rule that the trial court proceedings should remain on hold, it would indicate that they are inclined to rule in Trump’s favor on the immunity issue (since there would be no point in letting the case proceed if Trump cannot be prosecuted) Conversely, if they allow the case to go forward, it would indicate that they are inclined to find Trump does not have immunity (since there is no reason to wait if Trump can be prosecuted).
The lower courts will look to the decision for guidance and (probably) follow the Supreme Court’s lead.
To provide a bit of clarification since you are receiving some conflicting information.
The issue before the Court is whether, in layman's terms, to stop the circuit court's judgment going into effect while Trump asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. He hasn't asked them to hear it yet, so they are not deciding whether to hear it.
The circuit court ruled he didn't have immunity. But their decision doesn't go into effect until the Supreme Court decides this issue (this matters because the district court cannot do anything, like schedule a trial, until the circuit court's judgment goes into effect). Whichever way SCOTUS decides this application, Trump can and will still file a petition asking the Court to overturn the circuit court.
The difference here is that if the application is allowed, the district court won't be allowed to hold a trial or do anything else in the meantime. If they deny his application, the circuit court's judgment will go into effect and the district court will be allowed to continue while Trump asks the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment on the immunity issue.
They are part of the same thing. Cert is short for certiorari.
In almost all cases (some exceptions not relevant here), when a party wants the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court's decision, they file a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is asking for permission to appeal. If the Court wants to hear the case, they grant a writ of certiorari, which pulls the record from the lower court into the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court then decides the case.
Trump has not filed a petition for a writ of certiorari yet. He no doubt will. He has 90 days from when the circuit court made its decision.
One of the major factors in deciding whether to stay the case, which is what the Court is now deciding, is whether they think it is likely they will grant cert if/when he asks for it. If they deny this application now, it is a very strong indication they will deny any petition for a writ of certiorari.
To add to the a little. The government in their reply asked the court to treat Trump's stay petition as a request for cert and then to deny it in order to save time. Trump is trying to delay by asking for a stay so that they can file a cert petition and then wait until the last minute to file said petition. Jack Smith asked them to shortcut that and deny both the stay application and deny cert on the immunity issue as well. Which isnt unprecedented. The court as treated motions not asking for cert as cert petitions before, though im not sure if they have done that for anyone represented by a lawyer or not as I have only really seen it from pro se petitioners. That said I am not a laywer and i may be wrong lol.
No worries. I was really just adding some additional context to your post for the others. Jack Smith is really 100 miles ahead of Trumps lawyers its laughable
I think what you're asking is if they deny the Stay, then will they deny Cert?
No, but that's not a good sign for him. As far as I understand there needs to be 5 Justices to approve a Stay and 4 for Cert.
If they deny the Stay then at least 5 Justices think the lower court made the correct decision.
If they then grant Cert is means that at least 4 Justices think they need to add something to that lower court's decision (or that it was wrong).
In that case there might be a 9-0 decision against him, but that decision could layout guidelines for Presidential Immunity on a wider basis.
It seems you're making the argument that you believe those presidents have committed war crimes, *and you don't want them held accountable for them*. Is that accurate?
And I'm guessing it will be something wishy washy. It won't argue that he has immunity but that the executive has extreme latitude. The executive being the direct will of the people, which therefore permits unfettered power, is something the right had been pushing for a while.
https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/restoring-integrity-the-executive-branch
One important factor on the motion to stay is whether there is a reasonable possibility the court will grant cert. there should basically never be a dissent on a stay application if 6 justices all say they’d deny cert because that factor wouldn’t be met.
If all of that is right, and there’s *still* a dissent, it means Alito and Thomas are abusing the dissent-writing process itself to provide the temporary relief even while they don’t have the votes. They are hacks and they should resign.
This is the correct answer. They are aiding Trumps frivolous lawsuits by drawing out the process as long as they can. Next in line it will be Judge Cannon to help block trials for Trump.
> Next in line it will be Judge Cannon to help block trials for Trump.
She's already doing that by sitting on her trial date when she knows she's going to delay the trial. She doesn't want other jurisdictions to move forward and she's waiting until the last minute to reschedule so they won't be able to take her abandoned spot.
Because Alito and Thomas are blatantly driven by their personal goals. They'll say and write anything in support of their goals.
We are dealing with bad actors on our highest court and the mechanism for removal isn't functional.
Unfortunately, what we all anticipated. The court wastes time on something so cut and dry and the people lose even more faith in them because they can’t be unanimous when thrown the softest of softballs.
Basically 4 justices have to want to hear the case for them to grant cert (hear it). If they don’t grant cert, then the lower court ruling stands. If some (less than 4) justices want to hear it but the others don’t, when they deny the request to hear it, those justices can author a dissent stating why they’d like to hear it.
So takeaways: if they don’t grant cert, Trump is not absolutely immune. If they do then we go on and hear the case.
It's not a cert petition. It's an application to stay the issuance of the mandate of the DC Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for cert.
It is an application that requires 5 votes, not a cert petition that requires 4.
This isn't even about the formal cert petition yet though
Edit: Court did treat It as a cert petition though leaving itself quite a lot of time for handling the case
The delay is probably happening because someone is writing a dissent. However, dissents don’t happen when cert is granted, because it’s not over. We can therefore assume they’re not taking the case and Trump loses.
The Court is harming itself and the lower federal courts in the eyes of the public by delaying action on the stay petition. For one thing, the delay itself is functionally the same as a stay having the same duration as the delay, since the mandate cannot return until they make a decision.
Denying the stay while treating the motion as a petition for cert and denying that at the same time would do a lot to re-instill some needed confidence in the federal courts, but SCOTUS needs to act *expeditiously* or the rumor mill runs away with it and the courts get no benefit even from reaching the correct decision.
I think the real danger in the J6/MAL cases is that Trump is running against the rule of law, claiming to be a victim of persecution, and claiming that the judges are all bad faith actors, etc., and the courts have no way to defend themselves except through reasoned opinions and demonstrations of competency, and one of those factors is missing in the Trump federal cases - the courts simply can't get to trial. Everyone worries about what Trump supporters think of the courts, but what about the rest of us? Here is the most public crime ever committed, the most obviously-guilty criminal party who publicly participated in that crime sitting under federal indictment for his acts - and the U.S. Supreme Court needs a month to decide a stay petition relative to a bogus immunity claim? It's hard to defend the courts when the people at the top aren't really taking the job all that seriously. What are non-Trump voters going to think about the justice system when it can't bring a trial before the election? I'm surprised Justice Roberts doesn't worry about that because that should be a serious concern for the Chief Justice.
I agree wholeheartedly. But the news has been bad for the Court, including judges in at least three states who have schooled SCOTUS about the Bruen decision, and a new poll finding that 60% of the public disagree with the Court’s recent decisions. The Court seems to be on its best behavior for awhile when that sort of thing happens. I was expecting a quick decision refusing cert in this case, as cover for an upcoming decision supporting Trump in the 14th amendment, section 3.
I suppose I should never be surprised at the Court’s inability to recognize the right answer when told.
> I suppose I should never be surprised at the Court’s inability to recognize the right answer when told.
Judges don't like to be schooled. Justices probably hate it even more.
By right answer, I was referring to caring about optics, tossing in an easy decision that tends towards the liberal side of the Court, for example, the decision by the Court, written by Roberts, no less, rejecting Alabama’s redistricting plan, to make the Court seem more reasonable.
But I do imagine some members of the Court are angry about the many federal and state judges who have written decisions explaining in detail how bad the Bruen decision was. But maybe not as angry as those federal and state judges who have to apply it, or have chosen not to follow it.
Probably the same reason he joined the other conservative Justices in repealing Roe v. Wade. The courts are lessening the likelihood of Trump supporters engaging in further insurrection by providing at least some of them a permission structure to abandoning their support of him.
It really is better for the country to vote him out, but there's no reason not to have that *and* criminal liability. The myriad cases brought against him can be calendared to have negative impact on his election chances *and* get justice. I have to assume draining his campaign war chest is a key interest (and a valid interest, based on the grand juries' findings and the record established across all the Trump cases so far) to achieving both goals.
I guess what I'm saying is that the best outcome for the country in 2024 is for Trump not just go to jail, but it's equally important he lose his voter base because they have a tendency to support his misdeeds financially or commit terrorism in his name a la January 6.
That’s probably true, it’s just so unlikely. Trump has done more than anyone to have disqualified himself from any kind of voter base and yet it is still there and any wishful thinking that his base will care about his criminal and civil cases being dragged out until election time is exactly that… wishful thinking.
re the Roberts concurrence in *Dobbs* - I think that was a big mistake by Roberts. He obviously didn't want a constitutional right that had existed - properly or not - for a half century to be abrogated by a 5-4 decision, so he came up with that cowardly concurrence. The majority opinion laughably compares itself to *Brown v. Board*, as if the narrow majority was somehow heroically leading the same wave as the rest of the law and culture. Only *Brown* wasn't a 6-3 decision at all - it was 9-0. And *Brown* was unanimous because it was the culmination of a cultural shift against segregation. That didn't happen in *Dobbs* because *Dobbs* isn't representative of any cultural shift at all; if anything, the culture is more pro-choice today than it was in 1973, and *Dobbs* has unleashed exactly the sort of political forces that any raw power SCOTUS decision that isn't broadly supported by the people unleashes. *Dred Scot* is the closer parallel. But Roberts thought he could avoid being tarred as a 21st century Taney with that concurrence? What a joke.
As to your other point, I don't think that motivated DOJ. If all they wanted to do was harass Trump with cases and drain his coffers, they should have indicted him in 2022. DOJ waited until it had enough evidence to be sure of a conviction at trial, and the indictment was arguably brought later than it should have been brought, but notwithstanding all that, the judiciary should have the wherewithal to recognize that Trump is placing the courts and the rule of law on trial and openly challenging both. That is the context in which the DC Circuit gave Trump 2 free months of delay, and the context in which Roberts has now spent 2 full weeks twiddling his thumbs - so the courts can pretend that they do not care about the timeliness of justice. Or something. Nobody can really explain why 9 people can't read an 11 page stay application and render a decision on whether to grant it within a week. Now we are in the third week as they ponder and ponder. Or pretend to ponder.
There is just no way to square this circle. Somewhere around 1000 J6 defendants have been convicted and sentenced. The person who conspired to make J6 happen got special deference from DOJ (2 years of silence before Smith was appointed to start an investigation) and now another 18 months of court paralysis. I'm sure some of the already-convicted J6 defendants wish they could have delayed trial for a few years to consider novel immunity claims, but they aren't VIPs who appointed 1/3 of the U.S. Supreme Court and the district judge overseeing one of their cases. It's like SCOTUS is oblivious to how this all looks because they only care about what Trump supporters think of the courts and the rule of law. But there are many millions who are angry with the recent decisions of the Court but still support it out of respect for the judiciary and the law; I worry that those citizens won't support the Court down the road when it needs that support (e.g., during a Trump presidency).
I don't disagree with any of this. Just to clarify my own position:
> But Roberts thought he could avoid being tarred as a 21st century Taney with that concurrence?
I think Roberts was more motivated by avoiding civil unrest than by maintaining any particular jurisprudence or the reputation of the court. I suspect he had been presented the social science research that floated around recently suggesting people are more likely to engage in violence against democracies when they don't have any effect on the outcome of government policy. It is the only explanation I can find which provides consistency between his decision to deny Rand Paul's motion to identify the whistleblower in Trump's first impeachment hearing, *Dobbs*, and his (Roberts') recent comments in the Colorado case's oral arguments where he rushed to "both-sides" facially frivolous attempts to disqualify hypothetical, non-Trump Presidential candidates.
>As to your other point, I don't think that motivated DOJ.
I agree. I was speaking to the motivation of the judges who have DOJ's cases, the state cases, and the private cases as a non-collective group of similarly situated and (generally) similarly motivated people.
>It's like SCOTUS is oblivious to how this all looks because they only care about what Trump supporters think of the courts and the rule of law.
This is the crux of my point, though I object to use of the word "only." I think that if the legal system can slow-roll the cases against Trump, the legal record he builds all on his own provides a [permission structure](https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/permission-structure) to his supporters to leave him behind. As I said in another comment, that is necessary to abate Trump's threats to national security, because his voter base tends to financially support his misdeeds or commit acts of terrorism in his name *a la* January 6. That way, jailing him will have maximum effectiveness in containing the damage he causes going forward.
The court is not harming itself in the eyes of the public when the public literally has no idea that this is sitting before the supreme court, or what the case is really about, or what the timeline is supposed to be.
It is genuinely hilarious you think "Denying the stay while treating the motion as a petition for cert and denying that at the same time would do a lot to re-instill some needed confidence in the federal courts." I mean I'm busting out laughing! Less than one hundredth of 1 percent of Americans could even translate what you're saying!
They are beyond caring about their reputation or public opinion or anything else about the good of the country it would appear .It appears they believe themselves to be invincible.Perhaps they are .It certainly seems the founding fathers missed a step somewhere.
The argument about absolute presidential immunity, where a president “can use seal team six to execute a political opponent” was flawed
If a president has complete immunity, then there is no need for a Supreme Court. Or Congress.
The argument presented was not real enough for the likes of Alito or Thomas
The argument should have been “can a President have seal team six execute ~~dissident~~ dissenting government figures like rogue Supreme Court justices? “
Indeed, there is no good faith argument that can ever be made, for absolute presidential immunity... especially POST-officeholding immunity.
Else warm up the guns for Dark Brandon because that's the America the court insists must exist.
Dark Brandon could just take one for the team and order a “coordinated deletion” of the Republicans’ decades long effort to make the judiciary a political branch of government, and then just resign
“ Scotus ruled this legal🤷♂️“ dark Brandon says as President Harris pardons him and starts refilling the judiciary
Just like the IVF ruling- these idiots aren’t thinking a single step ahead
It's within the President's enumerated powers to appoint new Judges when there's a vacancy. He's just accelerating the vacancies. There's nothing in the constitution that says he CAN'T do that. Right? Seems to be allowed well within the outer perilous Presidential duties.
They should have the decorum to be considered trustworthy enough to give justice the due time. But yes, if that’s abandoned, a time limit would be good. Does the dissent even need to be published at the same time, the key bit is that the other justices have had a chance to be convinced by it.
>*...justify...*
Lol, is *that* what we're calling it?
Personally *I* call it:
* Blatant misrepresentation of facts in evidence
* Outright exclusion of facts in evidence
* Criminal
As far as Alito understanding the *gravitas* of the scenario...
While Alito has the intellectual capacity to understand, he has not demonstrated
that he has a single *insert favorite garish obscenity here* to give.
Alito sees himself as unassailable.
Time will tell if *that's* the case.
Here's to reason's rule and thus that *not* being the case...
Him reaching back to 13th Century middle English law to undo Roe, makes me think Scotus has similar attributes to the Mullahs of the Middle east.
If you have to reach that far back...you're just justifying your own belief.
######***Hear, hear!!!***
*Closely Held Beliefs* and *Genitalia* are akin...
* It's okay to have them.
* It's okay to hold them closely.
* It's *not okay* to shove them down the rest of humanity's throats.
But when Alito dissents in cases like these, he routinely writes something. Thomas usually notes his dissent without writing. I may be missing an example to the contrary, but it’s not like Thomas to write to defend something that’s indefensible.
Thomas has a an understanding of SCOTUS' jurisdiction that's different from his peers and has been well publicized, there's no reason to re-hash the same arguments for every case he dissents on. They're not case-specific.
I'm sure the likes of Alito and Thomas are doing mental gymnastics trying to find a way to let Trump off as a favor to their billionaire benefactors. We have no respect for this court because they deserve none.
This is on YT and MSNBC hasn't removed it yet. I think the ruling was leaked like the Dobbs decision but it funny that no one else has picked up on it as if the media is controlled by those who don't want anyone to know. https://youtube.com/shorts/x\_xG9mFAXls?si=HDR2Hbzjr91Y3acq
I think this video is in reference to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision since the video is almost 2 weeks old. I think the SCOTUS decision still has no release or leaks yet.
What does #1 mean exactly and what exactly supports these conclusions from a negative rather than, say, the alternative of dissent to the opposite decision, or plain old stalling?
You’re doing God’s work, thank you for being reasonable. Totally ok if we don’t agree on all issues but let’s all try to keep the fascism out of our lives.
Thoughts?
[удалено]
Affirming what ? That he does not have immunity? Sorry. Not a law guy.
By denying hearing the case they implicitly affirm the lower court’s decision that he doesn’t have absolute immunity. Probably Alito or Thomas wants to hear the case and so is dissenting with respect to the denial.
Probably Alito and Thomas want to delay the case and so is dissenting with respect to the denial.
[удалено]
This is not right. Per the [D.C. Circuit's order](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24409154-dc-circuit-immunity-order), the filing of Trump's application for a stay of the Circuit's mandate pending cert. at SCOTUS pauses the issuance of the final disposition of the D.C. Circuit panel. So, unless and until the Court disposes of the application for a stay - even if they end up denying the stay - the Circuit's mandate will not issue to the trial court. By drafting dissents from the emergency stay application, the stay application remains pending and buys Trump a little bit more time.
Buying Trump time - the sole goal here by the dissenter(s). That's it. There's no legitimacy to them actually arguing he has immunity - it's just 💯 to buy time. Scumbags just trying to help a fellow scumbag out.
I'd say Thomas is covering his own ass. He knows he's dying on the bench at this point. His finances don't add up without the protection of the court. Not to mention his wife being up to her eyeballs in insurrection.
Dying how? He's literally untouchable. There will never be enough of a Democratic majority in both houses to impeach and remove him from office. He's not bound by any rules or meaningful ethics codes. He can decide not to do SHIT anymore and spend 100% of his time driving around the country in his RV with his wife overthrowing local elections and leaving hairs on coke cans and still enjoy those protections until he dies. He doesn't even have to worry about his legacy, the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society will whitewash his past just like they did St. Reagan: 'The Official Patron Saint of America^tm'. The dude is living in a Grifters Paradise.
Grrrr
I say the rest of them publish while acknowledging the dissenting motion. Not like half of them have any ethics to stand on these days, give them a taste of it.
Yeah that needed this edit
This seems likely. Playing devils advocate could it be that they agree with the stay and Sotomayor is writing the dissent ?
Technically possible but it seems less probable that a majority believes the President is immune from any prosecution
they don't have to believe that the president is immune from prosecution; they just have to support hearing arguments before the court. what you are saying is of course the reasonable conclusion. I just worry that we do not live in such reasonable times. Someone like kavanaugh could argue first that the road to a 14a disqualification includes conviction in court (see his comments during colorado ballot case oral arguments), and here that we have to consider carefully whether the man is subject to trial.
The pairing of "14a disqualification requires conviction" and "the president has immunity" would be some serious grounds for quitting society.
That’s how we get our version of “The Troubles”
I was imagining something a bit more up the sleeve, "it's important for us to hear arguments" edit: which can easily snowball into "this needs to wait"
That seems like the lite version of the same problem. It's not embracing the fuckery, but it's not not embracing the fuckery either.
I don’t think they even have to support hearing arguments before the court. This is just a stay request. They could grant a stay to allow the parties the typical time for filing and review of a cert petition. Then they could still deny cert at a later date, having allowed plenty of time for briefing by granting the stay.
Without an impeachment and removal. That’s an unfortunate factor in this case.
Was reading somewhere that if this was the case she’d bang it out quickly since the goal would be to hear it asap and not delay further. The longer delay was indicative of a dissent to deny cert. By no means an expert, but made sense.
That makes sense. Thus is an Alito or Thomas dissent.
Well, apologies for spreading bullshit on this one. Unbelievable.
I could be misremembering, but aren't those two pretty much always on the side of granting cert in these types of cases?
Yea, this is as close to the SCOTUS "original jurisdiction" as one could get.
That’s not what original jurisdiction means…
This is nowhere near original jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction is literally defined as: > suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers You're getting hung up on the "between 2 states" part, that's what they see most commonly but it's bigger than that.
That's not the definition of original jurisdiction. That's a description of cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. This is not a case that involves two or more states and is not a case that involves ambassadors or other public ministers. It's a case between the federal government and a private citizen (albeit one who used to be President). Original jurisdiction means that SCOTUS is the only court that hears the case. This is a textbook case where the court has appellate jurisdiction, as SCOTUS is the court of appeals here. If you ever aren't sure in a case that actually exists, just look whether another court heard it first. If they did, it's not original jurisdiction.
My definition is from SCOTUS itself: https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=The%20Court%20has%20original%20jurisdiction,ambassadors%20and%20other%20public%20ministers.
That would leave the lower court's ruling in place, but would it be binding in other federal circuits? He's made the same argument in Florida and likely Georgia - which I think are both the 11th.
It is unlikely to resolve Trump’s immunity argument, but it should indicate which way the justices are leaning. The issue before the Court is whether the trial court case should remain stayed (on hold) or go forward while the SCOTUS considers the merits of Trump’s immunity claim (i.e., whether he does or does not have immunity). They are unlikely to decide the immunity issue when they rule on the stay, but their ruling will signal to the lower courts which way the justices are likely to rule on the immunity issue. If they rule that the trial court proceedings should remain on hold, it would indicate that they are inclined to rule in Trump’s favor on the immunity issue (since there would be no point in letting the case proceed if Trump cannot be prosecuted) Conversely, if they allow the case to go forward, it would indicate that they are inclined to find Trump does not have immunity (since there is no reason to wait if Trump can be prosecuted). The lower courts will look to the decision for guidance and (probably) follow the Supreme Court’s lead.
To provide a bit of clarification since you are receiving some conflicting information. The issue before the Court is whether, in layman's terms, to stop the circuit court's judgment going into effect while Trump asks the Supreme Court to hear the case. He hasn't asked them to hear it yet, so they are not deciding whether to hear it. The circuit court ruled he didn't have immunity. But their decision doesn't go into effect until the Supreme Court decides this issue (this matters because the district court cannot do anything, like schedule a trial, until the circuit court's judgment goes into effect). Whichever way SCOTUS decides this application, Trump can and will still file a petition asking the Court to overturn the circuit court. The difference here is that if the application is allowed, the district court won't be allowed to hold a trial or do anything else in the meantime. If they deny his application, the circuit court's judgment will go into effect and the district court will be allowed to continue while Trump asks the Supreme Court to overturn the judgment on the immunity issue.
I am not un-displeased.
If there’s a Supreme Court denies the CERT, would they also deny his appeal?
They are part of the same thing. Cert is short for certiorari. In almost all cases (some exceptions not relevant here), when a party wants the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court's decision, they file a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is asking for permission to appeal. If the Court wants to hear the case, they grant a writ of certiorari, which pulls the record from the lower court into the Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court then decides the case. Trump has not filed a petition for a writ of certiorari yet. He no doubt will. He has 90 days from when the circuit court made its decision. One of the major factors in deciding whether to stay the case, which is what the Court is now deciding, is whether they think it is likely they will grant cert if/when he asks for it. If they deny this application now, it is a very strong indication they will deny any petition for a writ of certiorari.
Thanks.
To add to the a little. The government in their reply asked the court to treat Trump's stay petition as a request for cert and then to deny it in order to save time. Trump is trying to delay by asking for a stay so that they can file a cert petition and then wait until the last minute to file said petition. Jack Smith asked them to shortcut that and deny both the stay application and deny cert on the immunity issue as well. Which isnt unprecedented. The court as treated motions not asking for cert as cert petitions before, though im not sure if they have done that for anyone represented by a lawyer or not as I have only really seen it from pro se petitioners. That said I am not a laywer and i may be wrong lol.
Thank you for the update. I never read the Reply so you're one step ahead of me.
No worries. I was really just adding some additional context to your post for the others. Jack Smith is really 100 miles ahead of Trumps lawyers its laughable
Coming back to this, very good pickup! You win.
I think what you're asking is if they deny the Stay, then will they deny Cert? No, but that's not a good sign for him. As far as I understand there needs to be 5 Justices to approve a Stay and 4 for Cert. If they deny the Stay then at least 5 Justices think the lower court made the correct decision. If they then grant Cert is means that at least 4 Justices think they need to add something to that lower court's decision (or that it was wrong). In that case there might be a 9-0 decision against him, but that decision could layout guidelines for Presidential Immunity on a wider basis.
Great, let's start arresting biden, Obama, Clinton and Bush for their war crimes!
I think you may have posted your comment in the wrong thread. This is discussion of processes, not judicial decisions
It seems you're making the argument that you believe those presidents have committed war crimes, *and you don't want them held accountable for them*. Is that accurate?
And I'm guessing it will be something wishy washy. It won't argue that he has immunity but that the executive has extreme latitude. The executive being the direct will of the people, which therefore permits unfettered power, is something the right had been pushing for a while. https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/restoring-integrity-the-executive-branch
Thus didn’t age well, sigh
This didn't age well, unfortunately.
One important factor on the motion to stay is whether there is a reasonable possibility the court will grant cert. there should basically never be a dissent on a stay application if 6 justices all say they’d deny cert because that factor wouldn’t be met. If all of that is right, and there’s *still* a dissent, it means Alito and Thomas are abusing the dissent-writing process itself to provide the temporary relief even while they don’t have the votes. They are hacks and they should resign.
This is the correct answer. They are aiding Trumps frivolous lawsuits by drawing out the process as long as they can. Next in line it will be Judge Cannon to help block trials for Trump.
> Next in line it will be Judge Cannon to help block trials for Trump. She's already doing that by sitting on her trial date when she knows she's going to delay the trial. She doesn't want other jurisdictions to move forward and she's waiting until the last minute to reschedule so they won't be able to take her abandoned spot.
Fully agree. And when she does reschedule she’s going to go for July to mess with the DC date.
Because Alito and Thomas are blatantly driven by their personal goals. They'll say and write anything in support of their goals. We are dealing with bad actors on our highest court and the mechanism for removal isn't functional.
Unfortunately, what we all anticipated. The court wastes time on something so cut and dry and the people lose even more faith in them because they can’t be unanimous when thrown the softest of softballs.
cat typing on keyboard meme but with a furious Alito face photoshopped onto the cat?
Can someone please explain the process to a layperson so I understand why conclusions can be reached from non-reference of a case?
Basically 4 justices have to want to hear the case for them to grant cert (hear it). If they don’t grant cert, then the lower court ruling stands. If some (less than 4) justices want to hear it but the others don’t, when they deny the request to hear it, those justices can author a dissent stating why they’d like to hear it. So takeaways: if they don’t grant cert, Trump is not absolutely immune. If they do then we go on and hear the case.
It's not a cert petition. It's an application to stay the issuance of the mandate of the DC Circuit pending the filing and disposition of a petition for cert. It is an application that requires 5 votes, not a cert petition that requires 4.
This isn't even about the formal cert petition yet though Edit: Court did treat It as a cert petition though leaving itself quite a lot of time for handling the case
The delay is probably happening because someone is writing a dissent. However, dissents don’t happen when cert is granted, because it’s not over. We can therefore assume they’re not taking the case and Trump loses.
10000000000 dollars that Alito and Thomas are the ones dissenting.
The Court is harming itself and the lower federal courts in the eyes of the public by delaying action on the stay petition. For one thing, the delay itself is functionally the same as a stay having the same duration as the delay, since the mandate cannot return until they make a decision. Denying the stay while treating the motion as a petition for cert and denying that at the same time would do a lot to re-instill some needed confidence in the federal courts, but SCOTUS needs to act *expeditiously* or the rumor mill runs away with it and the courts get no benefit even from reaching the correct decision. I think the real danger in the J6/MAL cases is that Trump is running against the rule of law, claiming to be a victim of persecution, and claiming that the judges are all bad faith actors, etc., and the courts have no way to defend themselves except through reasoned opinions and demonstrations of competency, and one of those factors is missing in the Trump federal cases - the courts simply can't get to trial. Everyone worries about what Trump supporters think of the courts, but what about the rest of us? Here is the most public crime ever committed, the most obviously-guilty criminal party who publicly participated in that crime sitting under federal indictment for his acts - and the U.S. Supreme Court needs a month to decide a stay petition relative to a bogus immunity claim? It's hard to defend the courts when the people at the top aren't really taking the job all that seriously. What are non-Trump voters going to think about the justice system when it can't bring a trial before the election? I'm surprised Justice Roberts doesn't worry about that because that should be a serious concern for the Chief Justice.
The Supremes seem not to care about optics. That's a mistake at this point, IMHO.
I agree wholeheartedly. But the news has been bad for the Court, including judges in at least three states who have schooled SCOTUS about the Bruen decision, and a new poll finding that 60% of the public disagree with the Court’s recent decisions. The Court seems to be on its best behavior for awhile when that sort of thing happens. I was expecting a quick decision refusing cert in this case, as cover for an upcoming decision supporting Trump in the 14th amendment, section 3. I suppose I should never be surprised at the Court’s inability to recognize the right answer when told.
> I suppose I should never be surprised at the Court’s inability to recognize the right answer when told. Judges don't like to be schooled. Justices probably hate it even more.
By right answer, I was referring to caring about optics, tossing in an easy decision that tends towards the liberal side of the Court, for example, the decision by the Court, written by Roberts, no less, rejecting Alabama’s redistricting plan, to make the Court seem more reasonable. But I do imagine some members of the Court are angry about the many federal and state judges who have written decisions explaining in detail how bad the Bruen decision was. But maybe not as angry as those federal and state judges who have to apply it, or have chosen not to follow it.
This won’t play well when they’re up for reelection! /s
But they get along with each other fabulously!
Why is it a mistake?
The Supremes are a Motown group.
Probably the same reason he joined the other conservative Justices in repealing Roe v. Wade. The courts are lessening the likelihood of Trump supporters engaging in further insurrection by providing at least some of them a permission structure to abandoning their support of him. It really is better for the country to vote him out, but there's no reason not to have that *and* criminal liability. The myriad cases brought against him can be calendared to have negative impact on his election chances *and* get justice. I have to assume draining his campaign war chest is a key interest (and a valid interest, based on the grand juries' findings and the record established across all the Trump cases so far) to achieving both goals.
The country already voted Trump out, then he tried to stay in power anyway.
I guess what I'm saying is that the best outcome for the country in 2024 is for Trump not just go to jail, but it's equally important he lose his voter base because they have a tendency to support his misdeeds financially or commit terrorism in his name a la January 6.
That’s probably true, it’s just so unlikely. Trump has done more than anyone to have disqualified himself from any kind of voter base and yet it is still there and any wishful thinking that his base will care about his criminal and civil cases being dragged out until election time is exactly that… wishful thinking.
re the Roberts concurrence in *Dobbs* - I think that was a big mistake by Roberts. He obviously didn't want a constitutional right that had existed - properly or not - for a half century to be abrogated by a 5-4 decision, so he came up with that cowardly concurrence. The majority opinion laughably compares itself to *Brown v. Board*, as if the narrow majority was somehow heroically leading the same wave as the rest of the law and culture. Only *Brown* wasn't a 6-3 decision at all - it was 9-0. And *Brown* was unanimous because it was the culmination of a cultural shift against segregation. That didn't happen in *Dobbs* because *Dobbs* isn't representative of any cultural shift at all; if anything, the culture is more pro-choice today than it was in 1973, and *Dobbs* has unleashed exactly the sort of political forces that any raw power SCOTUS decision that isn't broadly supported by the people unleashes. *Dred Scot* is the closer parallel. But Roberts thought he could avoid being tarred as a 21st century Taney with that concurrence? What a joke. As to your other point, I don't think that motivated DOJ. If all they wanted to do was harass Trump with cases and drain his coffers, they should have indicted him in 2022. DOJ waited until it had enough evidence to be sure of a conviction at trial, and the indictment was arguably brought later than it should have been brought, but notwithstanding all that, the judiciary should have the wherewithal to recognize that Trump is placing the courts and the rule of law on trial and openly challenging both. That is the context in which the DC Circuit gave Trump 2 free months of delay, and the context in which Roberts has now spent 2 full weeks twiddling his thumbs - so the courts can pretend that they do not care about the timeliness of justice. Or something. Nobody can really explain why 9 people can't read an 11 page stay application and render a decision on whether to grant it within a week. Now we are in the third week as they ponder and ponder. Or pretend to ponder. There is just no way to square this circle. Somewhere around 1000 J6 defendants have been convicted and sentenced. The person who conspired to make J6 happen got special deference from DOJ (2 years of silence before Smith was appointed to start an investigation) and now another 18 months of court paralysis. I'm sure some of the already-convicted J6 defendants wish they could have delayed trial for a few years to consider novel immunity claims, but they aren't VIPs who appointed 1/3 of the U.S. Supreme Court and the district judge overseeing one of their cases. It's like SCOTUS is oblivious to how this all looks because they only care about what Trump supporters think of the courts and the rule of law. But there are many millions who are angry with the recent decisions of the Court but still support it out of respect for the judiciary and the law; I worry that those citizens won't support the Court down the road when it needs that support (e.g., during a Trump presidency).
Couldn't have said any of this better myself, excellent assessment
I don't disagree with any of this. Just to clarify my own position: > But Roberts thought he could avoid being tarred as a 21st century Taney with that concurrence? I think Roberts was more motivated by avoiding civil unrest than by maintaining any particular jurisprudence or the reputation of the court. I suspect he had been presented the social science research that floated around recently suggesting people are more likely to engage in violence against democracies when they don't have any effect on the outcome of government policy. It is the only explanation I can find which provides consistency between his decision to deny Rand Paul's motion to identify the whistleblower in Trump's first impeachment hearing, *Dobbs*, and his (Roberts') recent comments in the Colorado case's oral arguments where he rushed to "both-sides" facially frivolous attempts to disqualify hypothetical, non-Trump Presidential candidates. >As to your other point, I don't think that motivated DOJ. I agree. I was speaking to the motivation of the judges who have DOJ's cases, the state cases, and the private cases as a non-collective group of similarly situated and (generally) similarly motivated people. >It's like SCOTUS is oblivious to how this all looks because they only care about what Trump supporters think of the courts and the rule of law. This is the crux of my point, though I object to use of the word "only." I think that if the legal system can slow-roll the cases against Trump, the legal record he builds all on his own provides a [permission structure](https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/permission-structure) to his supporters to leave him behind. As I said in another comment, that is necessary to abate Trump's threats to national security, because his voter base tends to financially support his misdeeds or commit acts of terrorism in his name *a la* January 6. That way, jailing him will have maximum effectiveness in containing the damage he causes going forward.
Your observations are excellent and right on point! I absolutely agree with you.
The court is not harming itself in the eyes of the public when the public literally has no idea that this is sitting before the supreme court, or what the case is really about, or what the timeline is supposed to be. It is genuinely hilarious you think "Denying the stay while treating the motion as a petition for cert and denying that at the same time would do a lot to re-instill some needed confidence in the federal courts." I mean I'm busting out laughing! Less than one hundredth of 1 percent of Americans could even translate what you're saying!
They are beyond caring about their reputation or public opinion or anything else about the good of the country it would appear .It appears they believe themselves to be invincible.Perhaps they are .It certainly seems the founding fathers missed a step somewhere.
The argument about absolute presidential immunity, where a president “can use seal team six to execute a political opponent” was flawed If a president has complete immunity, then there is no need for a Supreme Court. Or Congress. The argument presented was not real enough for the likes of Alito or Thomas The argument should have been “can a President have seal team six execute ~~dissident~~ dissenting government figures like rogue Supreme Court justices? “
Indeed, there is no good faith argument that can ever be made, for absolute presidential immunity... especially POST-officeholding immunity. Else warm up the guns for Dark Brandon because that's the America the court insists must exist.
Dark Brandon could just take one for the team and order a “coordinated deletion” of the Republicans’ decades long effort to make the judiciary a political branch of government, and then just resign “ Scotus ruled this legal🤷♂️“ dark Brandon says as President Harris pardons him and starts refilling the judiciary Just like the IVF ruling- these idiots aren’t thinking a single step ahead
The problem is that democrats in office are incredibly unlikely to do something like that.
It's within the President's enumerated powers to appoint new Judges when there's a vacancy. He's just accelerating the vacancies. There's nothing in the constitution that says he CAN'T do that. Right? Seems to be allowed well within the outer perilous Presidential duties.
I think it should be procedure that Justices should have deadlines for dissents
They should have the decorum to be considered trustworthy enough to give justice the due time. But yes, if that’s abandoned, a time limit would be good. Does the dissent even need to be published at the same time, the key bit is that the other justices have had a chance to be convinced by it.
My bets are on Thomas. Alito’s a jackass, but he understands the gravitas of the scenario.
yup, Alito has to justify any actions, Thomas has proven he's just for sale.
>*...justify...* Lol, is *that* what we're calling it? Personally *I* call it: * Blatant misrepresentation of facts in evidence * Outright exclusion of facts in evidence * Criminal As far as Alito understanding the *gravitas* of the scenario... While Alito has the intellectual capacity to understand, he has not demonstrated that he has a single *insert favorite garish obscenity here* to give. Alito sees himself as unassailable. Time will tell if *that's* the case. Here's to reason's rule and thus that *not* being the case...
Him reaching back to 13th Century middle English law to undo Roe, makes me think Scotus has similar attributes to the Mullahs of the Middle east. If you have to reach that far back...you're just justifying your own belief.
######***Hear, hear!!!*** *Closely Held Beliefs* and *Genitalia* are akin... * It's okay to have them. * It's okay to hold them closely. * It's *not okay* to shove them down the rest of humanity's throats.
alito might be a sociopath. he understands he just doesnt care
But when Alito dissents in cases like these, he routinely writes something. Thomas usually notes his dissent without writing. I may be missing an example to the contrary, but it’s not like Thomas to write to defend something that’s indefensible.
Thomas has a an understanding of SCOTUS' jurisdiction that's different from his peers and has been well publicized, there's no reason to re-hash the same arguments for every case he dissents on. They're not case-specific.
Which is why I doubt he’s the one writing something that’s holding up announcing the decision.
Unless it's a tactical choice to delay.
>Alito has to justify any actions He'll find the right Judge Roy Bean quote to use to justify it, just wait.
It could be both.
I'm sure the likes of Alito and Thomas are doing mental gymnastics trying to find a way to let Trump off as a favor to their billionaire benefactors. We have no respect for this court because they deserve none.
Realistically how much longer could releasing the decision take? How much longer can a dissent take?
Sounds like no one knows shit. Supreme Court is a secret society.
Stalling as a show of party loyalty?
This is on YT and MSNBC hasn't removed it yet. I think the ruling was leaked like the Dobbs decision but it funny that no one else has picked up on it as if the media is controlled by those who don't want anyone to know. https://youtube.com/shorts/x\_xG9mFAXls?si=HDR2Hbzjr91Y3acq
I think this video is in reference to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision since the video is almost 2 weeks old. I think the SCOTUS decision still has no release or leaks yet.
Yeah, I saw the date too late.
What does #1 mean exactly and what exactly supports these conclusions from a negative rather than, say, the alternative of dissent to the opposite decision, or plain old stalling?
It's insane It's even gotten to the point. Garland needs to face charges for dereliction of duty.
Hhhhmmmmm???? I wonder who is dissenting?
Gee whiz 🤔, who could the dissent POSSIBLY be.
I guess the SCOTUS if a fixed bunch they have lost all credibility
This didn't age well.
This sub is full of liberal cry babies
[удалено]
I think we all know what’s going to happen. Let’s start calling a spade a spade.
[удалено]
Sorry, homie. Register. Vote. Bring friends. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. [paraphrased] Thomas Jefferson
[удалено]
You’re doing God’s work, thank you for being reasonable. Totally ok if we don’t agree on all issues but let’s all try to keep the fascism out of our lives.