as much as that guy wants that to happen, it's highly unlikely the court would avoid the immunity question if they took up the case.

granted, it's an easy question to answer, but it's a case of first impression involving a former president. they aren't going to punt it.

How is it determined when case will be heard? Anyone know?

Assuming 4 justices want grant cert (which I think definitely happens) who/how is is decided whether to hear the argument in March or hear it in June?

BMX Bandit said:

---

How is it determined when case will be heard? Anyone know?

Assuming 4 justices want grant cert (which I think definitely happens) who/how is is decided whether to hear the argument in March or hear it in June?

---

4 to grant cert, 5 to issue stay.

not sure about the other question but it's certain Smith would request an expedited hearing. and if the Court slow rolls this issue it's going to be perceived as a political move to help Trump delay, and Roberts definitely wants to avoid that. it's certainly possible, but just my opinion.

BMX Bandit said:

---

How is it determined when case will be heard? Anyone know?

Assuming 4 justices want grant cert (which I think definitely happens) who/how is is decided whether to hear the argument in March or hear it in June?

---

There is an emergency docket at SCOTUS, isn't there? Wasn't Sotomayor complaining she didn't get the entire summer off because of that emergency docket?

doesn't answer my question. I know how many cert takes.

once cert is granted, how is it decided WHEN they hear the oral argument?

not sure. I'm guessing it's decided when the justices confer, though I don't know if there's a threshold number of votes.

Wild ass guess: it's a majority vote. That said, I assume it is also subject to calendar constraints and schedule conflicts. No idea how it would turn out.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to weigh his appeal of a lower court decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution, a request that could further delay his 2020 election interference case.

Trump's formal appeal serves as a pause on what would be a pivotal criminal trial for Trump while the Supreme Court deliberates on his request. The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit, which ruled 3-0 last week against Trump's presidential immunity claims, set the short deadline for Trump to appeal.

---

Quote:

---

While there is no timetable for the high court to act, special counsel Jack Smith has pushed for a trial to take place before the November presidential election, where Trump and President Joe Biden are likely to face off again four years after they came head-to-head in the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court's options could include rejecting Trump's emergency appeal, which would allow U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to restart the trial proceedings in Washington's federal court. The trial was initially slated to begin in early March.

Justices on the high court could also extend that delay while they hear arguments on the immunity dispute. Given the unprecedented nature of the request, some legal experts have suggested the Supreme Court may not want to give the appeals court the last word over the dispute, even if the nine-member bench ultimately comes to a similar conclusion on Trump's presidential immunity argument.

---

Quote:

---

If the Supreme Court does take up the case, the oral argument schedule set by the justices could determine how soon the trial could begin, if they agree with the appeals court's finding that he isn't immune.

Trump's attorneys have alleged that there are partisan motivations at play for Smith's desire to hold a prompt trial, writing in a December filing that it "reflects the evident desire to schedule President Trump's potential trial during the summer of 2024at the height of the election season."

---

LINK

At this point, it's not so much whether SCOTUS will side with Trump on the immunity issue. It's an easy, slam dunk question and the DC appeals court's opinion was very thorough. It's whether they'll allow him to delay long enough to avoid a trial before the election.

BMX Bandit said:

---

How is it determined when case will be heard? Anyone know?

Assuming 4 justices want grant cert (which I think definitely happens) who/how is is decided whether to hear the argument in March or hear it in June?

---

5 votes to "expedite." Those asking for expedited review propose a schedule in the petition and its reviewed at conference. If such review is granted, the order usually directs the Clerk to schedule briefing and argument for a particular time period or to set the briefing schedule to allow for argument in a particular month or session.

The Clerk has a lot of power when it comes to the actual schedule.

thanks.


roberts gives smith until tuesday to file response to trump's application for stay

BMX Bandit said:

---

thanks.


roberts gives smith until tuesday to file response to trump's application for stay

---

What do you think the Court will do? Issue a stay? Expedite? Take their time?

smith almost certainly already has a response drafted

my guess (and its a guess, not any kind of prediction) is that the stay is granted and they expedite a hearing. oral argument within 2 months.

technically, trump has not filed his writ of certiorari yet. I have seen some say the court could consider the application for stay to be the writ and grant it. don't know if thats the case or not.

and to barbacoa's point, I think smith files his response before the end of the week.

Quote:

---

Trump's attorneys on Monday filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court contesting a decision by the DC Court of Appeals that found the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner is not immune from prosecution in Smith's case. The request is for temporary relief, to stay, or block, the appeals court mandate from taking effect.

If granted, the Trump legal team would have more time to file an appeal to the Supreme Court on the merits of whether a former president deserves immunity from criminal prosecution for actions while in office. Chief Justice John Roberts instructed Smith to reply to Trump's request no later than 4 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 20, 2024 though a filing could come sooner.

---

Quote:

---

The Justice Department may ask for expedited consideration of Trump's initial emergency appeal in response to the Supreme Court's order. The high court could then issue an order on whether to grant the state, until Trump files an appeal on the merits.

Alternatively, the court could grant Trump the stay and agree to hear the case on the merits without waiting for Trump to appeal. Were that to happen, the court is likely to expedite the matter, with oral arguments and a ruling coming within weeks or months.

Should the court reject Trump's request for a stay, the case would be thrown back to Judge Chutkan, who would then restart the pre-trial process and set a new trial date.

---

Quote:

---

The elephant in the room in all this, of course, is the upcoming presidential election. It's in former President Trump's interest to delay this, if possible, until after the election. Once the election is decided, and if Trump should emerge the victor (which is looking increasingly likely, if current polling is any indication), there exists the possibility that he could take an action that has never been attempted by any president, namely, a preemptive self-pardon.

Legal opinions on the subject of self-pardon by a president are mixed at best. The Constitution appears to limit the President in that it disallows a pardon in the case of impeachment. Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution states in part:

Quote:

---

...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

---

That would appear to allow a self-pardon. Also, an 1866 case, Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), appears to acknowledge a near-unlimited pardon power on the part of the president. That decision also notes that the Legislative Branch has no part in the pardon process and no authority to regulate it. That decision states in part:

Quote:

---

9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.

---

---

LINK

Brief filed by smith

JUST IN: Jack Smith files his response to Trump's stay request at the Supreme Court.

It's 40 pages and urges the justices to reject Trump's stay request or, if they don't, to set an expedited schedule so Trump's trial gets back on track. https://t.co/ci53mmoTkp

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 14, 2024

Haven't read Smith's latest whinefest of a brief. But when a prosecutor is beseeching SCOTUS to short circuit a defendant's due process rights for solely political purposes, I'd wager that doesn't sit well with them.

I never thought too much of Weissman but this Smith guy is such a pathetic lawyer. He obviously failed in his most basic task of hiring a remotely competent staff.

He won't even succeed in getting many non-die-hard-communists to believe in any of the propaganda around this crap at this point. The Obama's were just terrible at picking competent hack lawyers, as Sotomayor, Garland, Smith, Emmitt Sullivan and innumerable others demonstrate.

nortex97 said:

---

I never thought too much of Weissman but this Smith guy is such a pathetic lawyer. He obviously failed in his most basic task of hiring a remotely competent staff.

He won't even succeed in getting many non-die-hard-communists to believe in any of the propaganda around this crap at this point. The Obama's were just terrible at picking competent hack lawyers, as Sotomayor, Garland, Smith, Emmitt Sullivan and innumerable others demonstrate.

---

Yet here we are!

Quote:

---

Emmitt Sullivan

---

TBF, he used to be a fair judge and a tough one on prosecutors at that.

He lost his freaking mind during the Flynn case. I was shocked when he did that 180.

aggiehawg said:

---

Haven't read Smith's latest whinefest of a brief. But when a prosecutor is beseeching SCOTUS to short circuit a defendant's due process rights for solely political purposes, I'd wager that doesn't sit well with them.

---

Well I'll save you some time. Smith tells SCOTUS to reject Trump's bid to further delay his election interference trial, but adds that if the justices decide to intervene they should hear case as soon as March and issue a quick ruling on the immunity issue. And if you remember Smith previously told SCOTUS it needed to decide this issue but tries to square that with his argument against a stay by saying the court's refusal to hear his earlier appeal is a sign that it didn't think it needs to. He's stressing his time line way to hard, the case screams political stunt.

You mean the same way Trump is trying to slow roll his appeals on a bogus issue in the most obvious delay tactic ever in hopes he can win the election and pardon himself from a crime he oh so obviously didn't commit?

You know, for totally non political reasons.

Asking the court to expedite the issue so that the trial can continue before the election is a perfectly valid reason. To argue that it is not is bad faith.

Trump is running for the highest office. The people have a right to know if he is guilty of the crimes he was indicted for.

Yet he and so many think we don't have a right to know.

barbacoa taco said:

---

You mean the same way Trump is trying to slow roll his appeals on a bogus issue in the most obvious delay tactic ever in hopes he can win the election and pardon himself from a crime he oh so obviously didn't commit?

You know, for totally non political reasons.

---

GUESS WHAT?

Smith, as a prosecutor, has NO RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL NOR A FAIR TRIAL. EVER.

The sooner you get that CONSTITUTIONAL concept into your head, the happier you will be. Delays during appeals are a large part of our judicial process. It happens every freaking day for every defendant in a criminal trial.

Get over that fact.

This appeal was made in bad faith. The only goal is to delay. You know that.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law (which Trump does not have) knows that presidential immunity is not absolute. His attorneys know that. The justices know that. Trumps arguments are ridiculous and the appeals court shot them down for the garbage that they are. There is very little chance SCOTUS overrules them.

The only goal here is delay. Trump knows he's cooked on the merits. But if he successfully delays, he wins. It's bad faith and abuse of the judicial system in the most obvious way.

aggiehawg said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

You mean the same way Trump is trying to slow roll his appeals on a bogus issue in the most obvious delay tactic ever in hopes he can win the election and pardon himself from a crime he oh so obviously didn't commit?

You know, for totally non political reasons.

---

GUESS WHAT?

Smith, as a prosecutor, has NO RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL NOR A FAIR TRIAL. EVER.

The sooner you get that CONSTITUTIONAL concept into your head, the happier you will be. Delays during appeals are a large part of our judicial process. It happens every freaking day for every defendant in a criminal trial.

Get over that fact.

---

I've more or less posted the below on here before…

I don't think anyone anywhere has claimed a prosecutor has a 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial like a defendant.

However, There is a SCOTUS recognized, Constitutionally based public interest in speedy trials. (Barker v Wingo, 1972.)

A prosecutor has every right to ask for expedited procedure and the Court has every right to grant that.

A defendant has no right to a "slow" trial, or a "medium paced" trial, or any right to pick the speed of the trial beyond asking for a "speedy" trial.

Whether they expedite this case has nothing to do with who has the big-R 6th Amendment "Right" to a speedy trial.

Some out there on YouTube or whatever being the 6th Amendment up as if that's the issue here and it just isn't.

They may, they may not expedite the appeal. SCOTUS is a Court of tradition and procedure if nothing else. I won't be surprised if they don't. But they expedite things all the time for non-criminal-defendants. That's wholly within any party's prerogative to ask for and wholly within the Court's prerogative to grant.

barbacoa taco said:

---

This appeal was made in bad faith. The only goal is to delay. You know that.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law (which Trump does not have) knows that presidential immunity is not absolute. His attorneys know that. The justices know that. Trumps arguments are ridiculous and the appeals court shot them down for the garbage that they are. There is very little chance SCOTUS overrules them.

The only goal here is delay. Trump knows he's cooked on the merits. But if he successfully delays, he wins. It's bad faith and abuse of the judicial system in the most obvious way.

---

And you know what? A DEFENDANT CAN DO THAT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

What a prosecutor CANNOT DO is tell an appellate court to hang him higher and faster.

Jeebus! Get a clue here and follow how appellate processes work before opining. This is not only normal, it happens everyday wherein defendants use their RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to and stretch things out.

Once again...no...I am going to change this.

Show me where in the Constitution it says the prosecution has rights under Speedy Trial and right to a fair trial.

Do that.

I'll wait.

Quote:

---

What a prosecutor CANNOT DO is tell an appellate court to hang him higher and faster.

---

Of course a Prosecutor can ask for things to go faster.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

What a prosecutor CANNOT DO is tell an appellate court to hang him higher and faster.

---

Of course a Prosecutor can ask for things to go faster.

---

You really have zero grasp of this crap, do you?

Expedited and emergency appeals are commonplace. Just like the Colorado ballot one last week. When they are truly time sensitive, there's every reason to do it. If you're saying this is too close to the election and charges should have been brought sooner, then yes I completely agree.

An appellant also doesn't have a right to a rehearing en banc. And even if Trump goes down that road, the appeals court said that does not extend the stay.

Whatever. Right now I think 60/40 scotus grants cert. No chance they overturn. The only question mark is do they help Trump delay further

The public has an interest in seeing whether a presidential candidate is guilty of serious crimes. Any move by scotus to delay will instantly be seen as political for that reason. Not sure why you'd argue that the public does not have such an interest (not saying you are, but you are speaking in favor of a delay here)

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

What a prosecutor CANNOT DO is tell an appellate court to hang him higher and faster.

---

Of course a Prosecutor can ask for things to go faster.

---

You really have zero grasp of this crap, do you?

---

I like ya a lot, Hawg. You make me think. But do you want to get yourself banned again for being silly or do you have something of substance to say?

There is no "right" to SCOTUS taking a year to decide an appeal and it's wholly within any party's right to ask them to speed it up.

I would agree no one can "tell" an appellate court to speed it up.

I don't know if SCOTUS will or will not expedite this. But wholly possible.

Hilariously (and infuriatingly), Ken Paxton employed every stupid delay tactic known to man in his securities fraud case that he was indicted for in 2015. And he now moved to dismiss claiming his right to a speedy trial was violated.

These *****s truly have no shame.

... said:

---

...
I don't know if SCOTUS will or will not expedite this. But wholly possible.

---

Is it possible for the SC to deny the stay, but grant certiorari to review the appellate court decision?

possible, but not probable.

Watermelon Man said:

---

... said:

---

...
I don't know if SCOTUS will or will not expedite this. But wholly possible.

---

Is it possible for the SC to deny the stay, but grant certiorari to review the appellate court decision?

---

Yes. But unlikely as said above.

A key piece of obtaining a stay is showing you have a good chance of winning the case, so if they deny the stay, especially knowing it means the trial would continue, I think that's a decent sign that they don't think Trump's got a decent case. And that means granting cert becomes more unlikely.

But big egos sit on SCOTUS and they might want to have the final word for the sake of having the final word even if it's definitively upholding the lower court rulings.