Special Counsel Jack Smith Asks Supreme Court to Decide Trump Immunity – Highest Court Immediately Drops All Business to Comply With Special Counsel Request

theconservativetreehouse.com ^ | 12/11/2023 | sundance

[Pete Dovgan]

I am discussing the law and how it works. You are discussing the politics.

You are going to be very frustrated over the next few months.”

Like Medicine and Science, I believed the law was independent of politics. The frustrating reality is they no longer are independent. I doubt I will be shocked by the SCOTUS decision, especially after they refused an original jurisdiction case.

[Yo-Yo]

President Trump was NOT convicted of insurrection for the Jan 6 events, because he was acquitted by the senate, which means this clause does not apply, and as Trump's lawyers indicate, he cannot be further charged as it would be double jeopardy.

So it is your argument that had Trump been found guilty in his impeachment trial, then he could also have been tried in criminal court, but since he were found not guilty by the Senate, that he is immune from any civil penalty?

See my post 58.

[linedrive]

That is what I was wondering. Now there is a push, politically, that Clarence Thomas needs to recuse himself when hearing this.
Whatever - looks like the fix is in. Trying to figure out what kind of reaction the government expects when they try to put Trump behind bars. Maybe exactly what they are looking for? What they have been trying to get for years?

Here comes Biden’s words - ‘You need F-16s to take on the federal government’ - will he find out?

[carcraft]

Your ignorance of precedence is astounding. It isn’t what aboutism it is about establishing a precedent.

[Vermont Lt]

But the percedent hasn’t been set at the court. You cannot go into a court and say to the judge, “Well, he didn’t get caught…so I shouldn’t be charged.”

Your thinking is what you would expect at a grammar school.

[itsahoot]

So, who are you voting for since you've already given up?

So what have you seen the Supremes do that encourages you?

I have voted in every election since 1960 and have never voted for a democrat in my life so who do you suppose I will vote for? The problem is clear to anyone who cares to listen to facts the last election was stolen as sure as the sun will come up in the morning. I predict the Court will do nothing to protect the sanctity of our elections, apparently you think they will. I say don't hold you breath but always hold out hope because the Lord demands it.

[Fury]

Re: 63 - thanks for posting this.

This really comes down to AJs Alito and Thomas believing that the court was obligated to allow the bill of complaint to be filed because per Article III, the Court -shall- have jurisdiction in cases between two or more states, and failing to provide a venue for States to settle disputes is inequitable - see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/150orig_3e04.pdf

I would expect that from those Justices - a textualist approach in such a matter.

But people just simply gloss over the part where Alito and Thomas would not grant any other relief other than allowing Texas to file a bill of complaint. It was simply not the business of Texas to cry foul and ask the Court to withhold the certified count from other states.

Just a clown car of a legal strategy and proof that foot stomping is not a replacement for a coherent legal strategy and team PRIOR to an election.

[Fury]

“What the hell is the constitutional basis for the Federal government to be prosecuting crimes for drive-by shootings?”

Getting Congressman elected. I wish I was kidding.

I could see such laws being relevant in D.C. or perhaps other Federal districts / reservations, but that’s about it.

[Alberta's Child]

That's a good post there.

I disagreed with Alito and Thomas at the time -- not because I disagreed with their legal rationale for accepting the case, but because I would have expected a textualist to be very, very reluctant by nature to allow the Federal courts to do anything to get involved in a presidential election where the Constitution lays out very clear plenary powers of the states.

This whole idea of one state (Texas) to file a legal action against another state (Pennsylvania) over a presidential election where there wasn't even any legitimate formal opposition from Pennsylvania's state or Federal officials would set a very dangerous precedent for eliminating state oversight of their own elections.

[Syncro]

John Kerry’s transition is coming along well.