Not sure which came first or if one evoked the other.
...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.
UPDATE 02:10 pm:
"A stunning move."
"This is a really ballsy move." -- Harry Litman
UPDATE 05:05 pm:
Jack Smith is covering all his bases, though. He says later in the filing: "Because of the discretionary nature of this Court’s consideration of this petition, and to avoid any potential delays, the government is concurrently filing a motion to expedite proceedings in the D.C. Circuit, which currently has jurisdiction over the appeal. As that motion explains, the government is seeking prompt resolution of the appeal in time to allow this Court to hear and decide the case this Term in the event the Court opts not to grant the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment."
[...]
If SCOTUS does NOT grant cert here, the Appeallate Court's decision is NOT the final word. In that case, Jack Smith will need to wait for the Appellate Court's ruling, and then re-apply for cert with SCOTUS on an expedited basis. If SCOTUS denies cert AGAIN, then the Appellate Court's ruling will be the final ruling in the matter.
[...]
Smith asks SCOTUS to require Trump to respond by December 18th, and then waives his right to respond, asking SCOTUS to set arguments after receiving Trump's response.
Mueller, She Wrote
And, just like that...it's done.
Smith's team asked SCOTUS to require Trump's response to their motion by December 18. SCOTUS gave him until December 20. He'll argue that SCOTUS should not leap frog over the Circuit Court, of course. Considering the quick response to Smith's petition, I'm hoping that means we'll hear very shortly after December 20 whether SCOTUS will take the case of whether Trump is immune from criminal prosecution by virtue of his presidency, and not waste time going through the Circuit Court (because no matter which way the Circuit ruled, the losing party would then appeal to the Supreme Court anyway).
It's hard to imagine that even this depraved Supreme Court would rule that a president is immune from prosecution for criminal acts. But I can see them coming up with something wholly bullshittish like saying the criminal things Trump did were in his capacity as a candidate for presidency, not his actual presidential capacity, and thereby skirt the issue of presidential immunity altogether.
(Or worse, like the sham that was Bush v. Gore, say their decision to grant immunity is for just this one case.)
UPDATE 12/12/2023:
The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictmen [...] were in his capacity as president and therefore protected.
[...]
The issue is considered ripe for the supreme court because while it has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits, it has never explicitly ruled on whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office.
[...]
Trump and his legal team have effectively been forced to grapple with the supreme court plank of his delay strategy far earlier than they had expected.
The eventual outcome could still be good for Trump: the justices could deny certiorari, for now, and instruct the special counsel to resubmit his request after the DC circuit issues a decision. Alternatively, the justices could grant certiorari and a majority rule in Trump’s favor.
But even with a conservative-leaning supreme court, those are the more unlikely options, according to the supreme court expert Steve Vladeck. The more likely outcome is that the court grants certiorari and rules against Trump – thereby eliminating the additional months of delay he had anticipated.
The probability that the supreme court rules against Trump on his presidential immunity claim, if it hears the case, is seen as a more likely scenario in large part because Trump’s interpretation is so far-reaching and without precedent in criminal caselaw.
Guardian
No comments:
Post a Comment