General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBreaking - Jack Smith directly to Scotus: Decide slobby's immunity NOW. 👍
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna129088LetMyPeopleVote
(145,977 posts)mobeau69
(11,170 posts)dalton99a
(81,708 posts)cilla4progress
(24,802 posts)Mate..?
Bettie
(16,151 posts)do they declare him immune from all prosecution?
If they do, do they do it narrowly, making it only for him personally?
csziggy
(34,141 posts)And declare it is only applicable to that singular case - and only benefiting the Repuke?
former9thward
(32,169 posts)The SC in Bush v Gore did NOT declare it only applicable to that case. In fact, Bush v Gore has been cited in hundreds of other cases as precedent in various briefs and decisions at district and appellate courts across the country.
lastlib
(23,389 posts)But that hasn't stopped courts and lawyers from citing it.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)Because it does explicitly state that the ruling applies only to that case. In fact, if you look at the actual ruling, on page 109, these are the very words that did it:
Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.
{Emphasis mine}
You can get your own copy of the ruling here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
former9thward
(32,169 posts)As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.
Bettie
(16,151 posts)my only reason for hope is that they realize in a dictatorship they lose their power and rule against him to keep it.
mopinko
(70,394 posts)mostly cuz they dont need him.
they havent bent over 4 him yet, theyre not gonna start now. theyre in deep enough shit as it is.
pandr32
(11,644 posts)I am sure Jack Smith has considered this thoroughly.
New Haven
(1,061 posts)No risk that way
mobeau69
(11,170 posts)unconstitutional.
Im not a Constitutional lawyer but I play one on DU.
Bettie
(16,151 posts)was for one guy and one guy only.
And the SCOTUS has set up that they alone decide what is constitutional.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)The SC in Bush v Gore did NOT declare it only applicable to that case. In fact, Bush v Gore has been cited in hundreds of other cases as precedent in various briefs and decisions at district and appellate courts across the country.
Bettie
(16,151 posts)specifically said it was not a case to be cited beyond there.
Whether it happened later or not is irrelevant, the language was there, but it was disregarded later on.
The intent was to give an election to a specific Republican regardless of the vote totals.
Kingofalldems
(38,518 posts)Don't know why anyone would claim otherwise.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)Please link to the language.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/98/case.pdf
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)Because it's on page 109, clear as day:
I assure you that plenty of people who know far more about law than you ever will knew what the court was saying there.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)The case can and is used as precedent by "plenty of people who know far more about law than you ever will knew"
Spazito
(50,643 posts)in election processes generally presents many complexities.
The bolded part is the one that has been read as meaning the case is limited to the specific circumstances and not meant to set precedence.
Some articles discussing this very issue:
Please Don't Cite This Case! The Precedential Value of Bush v. Gore
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/please-dona8217t-cite-this-case-the-precedential-value-of-bush-v-gore
Legal Precedent and the Bush-Gore Ruling
https://www.npr.org/2006/08/20/5678490/legal-precedent-and-the-bush-gore-ruling
Bettie
(16,151 posts)so I don't have to do the search and find it!
Spazito
(50,643 posts)in the decision that is still debated today, I just needed to find out exactly what it was.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)They simply didn't. As every attorney knows the SC never gives a decision that will apply to everything in the future because there are always some factual differences in every case. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent thousands of times by attorneys and courts that disagree with you.
P.S. a law journal forum is an opinion by a lawyer and nothing more.
Spazito
(50,643 posts)the one you recommended we all read. The court doesn't usually add this specific limitation, it is rare to say the least wouldn't you agree.
former9thward
(32,169 posts)Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals, that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov. Gray Davis to this years court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida. That means theres a chance Bush v. Gore could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race, should, say, Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000. (Indeed, the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state.)
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races, a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year. In 2008, for example, Norm Coleman, an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota, tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid. He was unsuccessful, and his Democratic opponent, the comedian Al Franken, ultimately won the seat.
Over the past two decades, Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination. An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation wont necessarily benefit one party or the other.
https://www.propublica.org/article/why-bush-v-gore-still-matters
Spazito
(50,643 posts)discuss the issue from a different perspective. As you stated these are opinions of which there are many and are also diverse in their points and, as such, have no influence on the actual decision by the USSC.
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)Go to page 109, where the court specifically says that their decision pertains only to the Bush v Gore case:
Maybe you or whoever you're depending on as a source doesn't know how to read language like that in a ruling, but real lawyers certainly do.
mobeau69
(11,170 posts)pwb
(11,319 posts)Break up some monopolies, make it so the rich just have way too much money and not most of it. The court decides for all Presidents.
Kennah
(14,376 posts)Lock him up in the USA
mobeau69
(11,170 posts)Send him there.
MorbidButterflyTat
(1,882 posts)Bettie
(16,151 posts)by their precedent, he could indeed just forgive all the student loan debt.
Polybius
(15,537 posts)Doesn't mean he can make any law he wants without going through Congress.
Bettie
(16,151 posts)he's unlikely to commit any crimes....so, it would be only for Republicans.
malaise
(269,336 posts)Down goes the Slobfather
mobeau69
(11,170 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)Bev54
(10,096 posts)Response to mobeau69 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Torchlight
(3,460 posts)And Smith appears to have both a well-reasoned response as well as a quick counter to every stunt Trump's pulled to date.
Response to Torchlight (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Torchlight
(3,460 posts)Response to Torchlight (Reply #36)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Torchlight
(3,460 posts)supported by fallacies of the converse.
Response to Torchlight (Reply #43)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Torchlight
(3,460 posts)FHRRK
(526 posts)Pony up mother fuckers!
MistakenLamb
(546 posts)Deminpenn
(15,305 posts)SCOTUS ruled that presidents can be sued while they are in office for crimes they committed before they took office. Clearly, the allegations in NY (James) fall in that category. The case Bragg brought might, too.
bluestarone
(17,132 posts)Way past time for REAL ANSWERS!! Come on SC do your fucking job!!
bucolic_frolic
(43,530 posts)A surprise move, and prevents hot air momentum from building up. Citizens deserve to know too, so they can plan their lives around normal or dictatorship.
orangecrush
(19,668 posts)bluestarone
(17,132 posts)First?
edhopper
(33,667 posts)a case where anybody could see that there is no Constitutional right to spend money on politics...free speech for corporations. But then created a new Constitutional Right and a new class of citizen.
So I don't see why they wouldn't say only Congress can try a former President, except they can't. Perfect Catch 22 to get their guy off the hook.
NowISeetheLight
(3,943 posts)While TFG put three idiots on the court, they haven't exactly always supported him. I can totally see this going against him 6-3 or even a 7-2. I see Alito and Thomas as no votes, but Gorsich, Kavanagh and Barrett could vote yes. I also see Robert's voting yes as he's concerned with the legacy.
bluestarone
(17,132 posts)If they sit on it, we'll KNOW what they are all about!. ONE DAY is all it should take!
PortTack
(32,823 posts)More months and then on to the SC probably putting it beyond the election
spanone
(135,950 posts)orangecrush
(19,668 posts)Holding breath.
lees1975
(3,946 posts)Otherwise, the whole trial and conviction will be overturned by them.
LudwigPastorius
(9,264 posts)Facts, decency, sanity, patriotism, logic...
But, prosecution isn't one of them!
Shermann
(7,489 posts)SCOTUS might do the right thing eventually but do the wrong thing now and stall things until the election has come and gone.
ancianita
(36,238 posts)https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/181/united-states-v-trump/
Yesterday, Sunday:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
p 2 of 3 pages:
in the appeal. For example, the Circuit recently returned the mandate on the Courts Rule 57.7
order regarding extrajudicial statements, and the Court has jurisdiction to administer that order.
Likewise, nothing about the defendants appeal prevents the Court from continuing to enforce
including, if necessary, by ordering briefing or holding hearingsthe protective orders governing
discovery (ECF Nos. 28 and 37) and the order imposing conditions of release on the defendant
(ECF No. 13).
In addition, while the appeal is pending, the Court can make headway on the motions
already before it, including the defendants motions to dismiss based on statutory grounds and
selective and vindictive prosecution. The Court can and should properly deny these motions under
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, which provides that a district court retains the authority to
deny pending motions that it otherwise lacks authority to grant because of an appeal that has been
docketed and is pending. Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2). Similarly, if the defendant initiates certain
litigationas he has done by filing his stay motionthe Court can take it up and resolve it. See,
e.g., Jefferson, ECF No. 199 (hearing on several motions filed by the defendant while defendants
Speech or Debate interlocutory appeal was pending); United States v. McDade, No. 92-cr-249,
1994 WL 161243, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 1994) (resolving defendants motion for issuance of
deposition subpoenas while his interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to dismiss on
Speech or Debate grounds was pending).
For its part, in light of the publics strong interest in a prompt trial, the Government will
seek to ensure that trial proceeds as scheduled. In particular, the Government will continue to
p 3 of 3 pgs
appeal is pending, although the defendant will not be subjected to the burdens of litigation, ECF
No. 178 at 5, the Government will continue to shoulder its own burden. Accordingly, the
Government will provide the defendant and the Court with any notice required by the pretrial
schedule, and moreincluding, depending on the length of the appellate process, the
Governments exhibit list, motions in limine, and other pleadings pertaining to the Governments
trial presentation. Any filings the Government makes according to this Courts schedule while the
appeal is pending can then be promptly litigated if the Courts order is affirmed and the mandate
is returned.
To the extent that the defendant is seeking a stay, pending his appeal, of matters implicating
those aspects of the case involved in the appeal, Griggs, 559 U.S. at 58, the Court should deny
his motion as unnecessary and duplicative; that divestiture occurred when the defendant filed his
notice of appeal. Otherwise, the Court should decline to issue an order that would prevent it from
resolving pending motions or handling aspects of this case unrelated to the appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
JACK SMITH
Special Counsel
By: /s/ Molly Gaston
Molly Gaston
Thomas P. Windom
Senior Assistant Special Counsels
Demnh2fl
(28 posts)Jack Smith is smart to do this . If theyre in the tank for Trump make the call and stop wasting everyones time.
Then he or any other President will be free to kill someone on the White House lawn and not be accountable to anyone. If it is constitutional in their eyes to commit any crime in office then the American Revolution was a waste of blood. Trump cant be a modern version of King George.
TygrBright
(20,780 posts)FakeNoose
(32,917 posts)Polybius
(15,537 posts)Would it be fast-tracked, or potentially at the end of the term in June?
bluestarone
(17,132 posts)This is 100% on the SC. They and only THEY can decide this. Should be TODAY in my books.
C_U_L8R
(45,042 posts)It could be hilarious to see the maga Justices try to parse their way through this. Frankly, I think Trump is fucked.
LAS14
(13,792 posts)malaise
(269,336 posts)United States Supreme Court
UNITED STATES v. NIXON(1974)
No. 73-1766
Argued: July 08, 1974
Decided: July 24, 1974
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,128 posts)Handler
(336 posts)I think Jack Smith is considering the shaky ground SCOTUS is standing on at this time. I believe the court would like less scrutiny at this point.