Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I think so.  We might have SCOTUS rejecting cert in a month.  Doesn't take too long to get the trial on the calendar after that.

And if they grant it and sit on a decision until the end of the term?

Posted
The fraud penalty in New York should drop any minute now as well unless something has changed. It would be nice to put a second harpoon into this orange whale this week or even today.
Perhaps we're a step closer to a victory of the obvious over the convoluted.

No it won’t. Judge is waiting on the perjury thing to plead out.
Posted
48 minutes ago, Goredho said:

You left off the best part of that scene.

The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity?

I mean, yeah.  That was great.  It works on so many levels.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Personally, I'm looking forward to Scalia's mental gymnastics to disavow his previous opinion from 2014 that the President was indeed an "officer of the United States".

IMG_2306.jpeg.bd2f26bf48e00b4d7320865612191558.jpeg

Posted
8 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

The part where Det. Murtaugh shoots an unarmed man, but is never prosecuted and cannot be sued for civil damages because he has--and here's the great irony of the movie--qualified immunity?

I mean, yeah.  That was great.  It works on so many levels.

pretty liberal application of immunity in movies if you happen to have a good one-liner.

Posted
3 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

He's got to have some immunity.

Yes, along with impeachment and conviction it lays out how a President who committed illegal acts in office is to be held accountable in our system. It was all perfectly well understood by everyone and still is by non-MAGAts but was depressingly in need of being affirmed and spelled out because of their idiocy and volume. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

It is careful to say that it isn't sure its reasoning applies to criminal prosecution during his term (he might not have been able to be indicted Jan 7) and that it might not apply to state crimes (Alabama can't pass a law that makes it illegal to eat ice cream while wearing aviators and lie in wait to spring it on him).  So he's got that immunity.  But for federal criminal statutes, it says go for it.  With respect to the implicit assumption that everyone seems to worry about ("They'll use this as a political excuse to grab every ex-president!"), the opinion just says If that's the case, why are we looking at this for the first time after 250 years of having presidents?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

We're talking about crimes here.

I am talking about immunity in terms of actions within the course and scope of his duties.  I haven't read the case, but my assumption is that the President making presidential decisions - for instance order someone to take out people who are trying to ransack the Capitol and attack members of Congress -- has some immunity from prosecution related to those decisions.

Posted
1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I am talking about immunity in terms of actions within the course and scope of his duties.  I haven't read the case, but my assumption is that the President making presidential decisions - for instance order someone to take out people who are trying to ransack the Capitol and attack members of Congress -- has some immunity from prosecution related to those decisions.

Yes.  That is the question of "official immunity."  If the action was within the course and scope of his official duties/actions, then he would have immunity for those.  The examples GOLL and I were discussing earlier:

Ordering a drone to take out suspected members of Al Qaeda (even if the intel was dead wrong, and it takes out a birthday party of innocents at the Homs Chuck E. Cheese) - an official act, for which there is official immunity.

Getting off of Marine One, grabbing an M-4 from one of the security detail, and gunning down every member of the press corps -- not an official act, no official immunity.

Note that the standard isn't a really high one.  It just has to arguably be within the scope of performing the duties of the office.  So, most all of Trump's statements about the electoral college and the federal process.....probable immunity.  But actions as a candidate, not POTUS (the call to the Georgia SOS, ordering him to find more votes)....no official immunity.

That's a simplified summary, but it's still out there.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted

Isn't it similar to Meadow's trying to claim his actions in Georgia were in his official capacity and that was pretty succinctly ruled as "lol no, your job duties do not encompass trying to overturn the results of an election, dumbass" 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I am of the wholly uneducated and most likely naïve opinion that crimes do not fall within the course and scope of POTUS' official duties and actions, unless we don't consider the Constitution a standard of law:

Quote

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Yeah, I'll defer to the more learned legal minds on this...but political ideology aside...the one thing I gleaned from studying under Justice Kennedy and then hearing/reading from others on the court over the years is while they twist precedent and logic to suit their needs...they---on the whole---sort of still see their institution and their predecessors and successors as a significant branch of America.  They, almost to a person, divisive as they may be, sorta see the past and future they control as being a mark of their existence.  They'll fuck this up no doubt, but they're gonna have to pay serious credence to Scalia's 14th opinion and wrench over what future bench members think about all this.  For better or worse, it's a closed-loop fraternity of a very select few...but they actually do give a shit about what happened before and how they'll be viewed after for the exact reason because they are legal nerds.  Harm can come from that lens, but at least it'll eat them away from the inside.  I have a note somewhere from Justice Kennedy that says something about what we say here and do here today will echo for generations.  I can't remember the exact language, it still hits the feels.  

Posted (edited)
Yeah, I'll defer to the more learned legal minds on this...but political ideology aside...the one thing I gleaned from studying under Justice Kennedy and then hearing/reading from others on the court over the years is while they twist precedent and logic to suit their needs...they---on the whole---sort of still see their institution and their predecessors and successors as a significant branch of America.  They, almost to a person, divisive as they may be, sorta see the past and future they control as being a mark of their existence.  They'll fuck this up no doubt, but they're gonna have to pay serious credence to Scalia's 14th opinion and wrench over what future bench members think about all this.  For better or worse, it's a closed-loop fraternity of a very select few...but they actually do give a shit about what happened before and how they'll be viewed after for the exact reason because they are legal nerds.  Harm can come from that lens, but at least it'll eat them away from the inside.  I have a note somewhere from Justice Kennedy that says something about what we say here and do here today will echo for generations.  I can't remember the exact language, it still hits the feels.  
 
My not-so-entirely-thought-out opinion is that to whatever extent the right wing of the court has an agenda, Trump's future doesn't really play into it long term anymore.  And to the extent they want to follow precedent and the law, same outcome.  So a denial of the petition for writ of cert. or a per curiam affirm wouldn't absolutely surprise me. 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Isn't it similar to Meadow's trying to claim his actions in Georgia were in his official capacity and that was pretty succinctly ruled as "lol no, your job duties do not encompass trying to overturn the results of an election, dumbass" 

spacer.png

  • Haha 2
Posted

He taught a summer abroad class when I was in law school in Salzburg, Austria.  He was from, in some roundabout way, the city I attend the primary campus.  My cousin clerked under him and his BiL's dad was a professor with him before he was on the big bench.  Long story.  I can barely read, but I'm good at surrounding myself with smart people.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

He taught a summer abroad class when I was in law school in Salzburg, Austria.  He was from, in some roundabout way, the city I attend the primary campus.  My cousin clerked under him and his BiL's dad was a professor with him before he was on the big bench.  Long story.  I can barely read, but I'm good at surrounding myself with smart people.  

Smart by association isn’t a bad strategy.

 

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot… there’s always one… except for this site.

I just assumed we all knew this was a safe space for every group’s idiot to go and just…. Be.

Edited by Dnaguy
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

I think the most likely outcome is SCOTUS either denies cert or unanimously rules against him.  It would be different if Trump were in power - the further right Justices might see an opportunity, and someone like Roberts might cave to fear and find a way to rationalize it (if we rule against Trump, then he will just defy the Supreme Court and cause a Constitutional crisis that threatens our legitimacy as an institution - so we should go ahead make the illegitimate ruling to avoid that).   But they don't have much incentive to do that now.

The arguments to favor Trump would have to be so ridiculous that I don't think even Clarence Thomas would do it unless he was assured that the MAGA dictatorship was actually going to happen.

The only question is whether enough of the assholes vote to grant cert (4) in order to delay the trial, which to be clear would constitute yet another shameful mark on the court's legitimacy. There's no way they're reversing, and I'm as jaded about the court as anyone. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

Smart by association isn’t a bad strategy.

 

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot… there’s always one… except for this site.

I just assumed we all knew this was a safe space for every group’s idiot to go and just…. Be.

I am very likely the group idiot.  But that should make you absolutely terrified because it means you're even something worse ;)  

But honestly, this is what the MAGA movement emboldened.  It was, and is, the mobilization of 25mm people who were disenfranchised, embarrassed, and sidelined from politics because they lacked the civid engagement, intelligence, and wherewithal.  And somebody came along and convinced them that it wasn't their fault---they were just marginalized by Libs, Browns, and Elites.  And I honestly don't know where the fuck we go from here even after he dies.  But we gotta figure it out soon.  You think I'm  fucking annoyance, you have no idea what's still on our collective horizon.  Most will to back to hibernate, but there's enough of the stupids that we're gonna have to deal with for decades to come and they got a beef on their shoulder the size of an F-250.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

The only question is whether enough of the assholes vote to grant cert (4) in order to delay the trial, which to be clear would constitute yet another shameful mark on the court's legitimacy. There's no way they're reversing, and I'm as jaded about the court as anyone. 


a delay would be a huge W 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

That Trump has only until 2/12 to appeal to the SC is a positive development.

It is a net positive for our nation, but it also narrows the window in which we can build up a party-level tolerance for taint-injected opiates.  

Posted
38 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot…

umm... hello? I'M RIGHT HERE.

  • Haha 8
Posted (edited)

Haven't seen a link to the opinion itself, so here it is.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf

Guess I didn't paste it or backed it up before posting.

Really solid opinion that runs the constitutional traps really well.  It is an improvement upon Chutkan's opinion (appellate courts, especially the DC Circuit, can be expected to be more adept with consitutional analysis than trial court judges, it's what they do).  This was worth waiting for because I think it substantially reduces the likelihood of certiorari.

The shortened timing on the mandate pending USSCt. review is just what the doctor ordered as far as getting Trump off his fat, dilatory ass.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am of the wholly uneducated and most likely naïve opinion that crimes do not fall within the course and scope of POTUS' official duties and actions, unless we don't consider the Constitution a standard of law:

 

Here's where that approach falls short.

A crime is not a crime until a defendant is convicted of a crime.  Until then it is an alleged crime.  An alleged crime is anything a prosecutor can coax a grand jury into true billing an indictment, so, a "ham sandwich."  If all it takes to remove immunity is an indictment for a criminal offense, politically motivated prosecutors and administrations could get up to fuckery in no time flat. 

Sure, some alleged crimes are more obviously criminal than others, like murder, rape, sodomy, mopery, etc.  It is also highly likely that those old-fashioned, obvious crimes are not in any way official duties.

But a President or other government official is highly likely to be indicted for a "statutory" crime, one with no obvious common-law analog, like the above.  Something like money laundering, or a sophisticated, "honest services" bribery scheme.  You can't tell on the face of it whether those are actually crimes until the jury weighs in.  Immunity loses a lot of its purpose and effectiveness if you can't tell whether it exists until the defendant is convicted.

Remember, immunity is intended to protect the government from interference, not particular government officials.

So, you have to look at the character of the acts alleged to be criminal (without resort to whether they are in fact crimes somewhere on the books) and determine whether those are official acts committed by an official that also happen to be crimes if convicted (or actionable civil wrongs, which is a lot more likely and for which immunity still exists in many instances).

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I am very likely the group idiot.  But that should make you absolutely terrified because it means you're even something worse ;)  

But honestly, this is what the MAGA movement emboldened.  It was, and is, the mobilization of 25mm people who were disenfranchised, embarrassed, and sidelined from politics because they lacked the civid engagement, intelligence, and wherewithal.  And somebody came along and convinced them that it wasn't their fault---they were just marginalized by Libs, Browns, and Elites.  And I honestly don't know where the fuck we go from here even after he dies.  But we gotta figure it out soon.  You think I'm  fucking annoyance, you have no idea what's still on our collective horizon.  Most will to back to hibernate, but there's enough of the stupids that we're gonna have to deal with for decades to come and they got a beef on their shoulder the size of an F-250.  

 

Here's my rosy prediction:

Everything that man touches turns to shit.

He's King Mierda.

His most fervent supports will also likely die in the next 10 years as they're dumb, obese, diabetic, and 60+ now.

For the Republican Party itself, it will be a zombie party that sticks around but never has the power it did since Reagan. 

It lacks ideas, it lacks a growing base, it still has billionaires, and democrats are, well, democrats.

Eventually the pendulum swings back and all this right wing bs is exercised from the body politic.

Amendments are passed to handle the gun issue, preservation of the right to choose, money /= speech, and sex and gender equality.

However, as we all grow old and creaky the hot button issues around AI, speech, health care, worker's rights, climate change, the global south, and the ever hotter political climate of the Pacific start to really weigh on us.

There is a splintering of the electorate and the Republicans cease on this to re-invent their party to be relevant again.

Posted (edited)

I think I would like my tagline to be "King Mierda"

What's the cost to turn "Legacy Members" into "King Mierda"

treeth fitty?

Edited by Slacks
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

Appreciate the detailed law-splaining homie 

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

it seems they were sitting around the bong in the DC Circuit break room, and in between hits asked their colleagues what they thought. Apparently everyone agrees that the panel was correct, so there is no real reason to ask for an en banc hearing.    

I think that got sufficiently communicated to the Orange Pustule and his legal team. 

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

Well, I mean... this WAS a "duh." Totally non-controversial.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Well, I mean... this WAS a "duh." Totally non-controversial.

Well, it was a question of first impression, never decided before. and those can go in funny directions. 

It's not enough to just say the President can't above the law.  We have variations of sovereign immunity all over this nation, mostly in civil cases, but it's friggin everywhere.  And when sovereign immunity is in effect, it places the official in question, and the government more broadly, above the law.  So that argument turns out to actually be pretty facile in that we have officials above the law on a near-daily basis (qualified immunity in police brutality cases being a glaring example, but it operates in more rational ways, too).

Fitzgerald  and Clinton extend a pretty healthy immunity to the President in civil cases and the argument to extend that to criminal cases is not as far-fetched as it seems.  In civil cases, a President, sitting or former, is pretty much immune for acts occurring in office.  So, yeah, he's above the law in a lot of cases.

The beauty of this opinion is that it takes the arguments for immunity seriously, and then seriously shreds them with tons of citations to prior case law, originalist history, and things like the Federalist Papers.  It's very well done.  And signed off on by Henderson, a GHWB appointee who remains quite conservative and militant about it.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

This cannot be true. I was assured all of the judges were in the tank for Trump, they let them get away with everything, and even though this was a rocket docket quick decision, the delay (because they were drafting an airtight decision) was deemed to be another sign that no one would do anything to stop Trump’s ass-hattery, let alone shorten his efforts to prolong his appeals - and sabotage any efforts to find an appealable issue through brilliant opinion drafting.  

You have disappointed many people here Twice.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3


×
×
  • Create New...