Trump trials

Which was probably expected by most, and why Smith also applied to the Appeals Court which DID grant a rapid hearing.

Certiorari

Smith may have a good case, but it doesn't mean this Supreme Court will grant it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01:55 pm:  And they didn't.

UPDATE 09:01 pm:

I'd sure like to know what that is if it is.

UPDATE 12/23/2023:

[M]y dream scenario would be for SCOTUS to deny cert, the Appeals court to deny trump's motion for immunity, then for SCOTUS to deny cert again when appealed after that ruling. That would mean the Appeals court ruling would be the final ruling, and it would take the least amount of time.

[...]

The [Appeals] court has set arguments for January 9th - lightning fast. They could render their decision anytime after the hearing on the 9th. Probably within a week, I'd wager.

[...]

Something else to consider: whoever dissented here and would have granted cert did not say why. Sometimes we will see a note that says "Justices so and so would have granted cert and set an expedited briefing schedule." If the liberal justices were in the minority here, I would think they'd want to say so. If the conservative justices were in the minority here, I'd also think they'd want to talk about it (Thomas and Alito love to talk). But since no one dissented, and the court only issued a single statement, perhaps that means they're all in some kind of agreement here.

I hope the agreement is that trump isn't immune and they don't want to hear the case. [...] Seems to me - and I could be totally wrong here - if they wanted to hear this case, they could have granted cert now and set a schedule. [...] I say that because if they WANT to hear the case, but denied cert to hear it before the appeals court rules, I feel like we would have heard a dissent.

[...]

It may be as simple as all the justices being in agreement that they want to see what the Appeals court does, but again, I feel like if SCOTUS were slow-walking this, the liberal justices would have spoken up.

  Mueller, She Wrote

Well, fingers crossed.

It's also of note that the Appeals court can lift the stay on the DC trial pending an appeal to SCOTUS. But if that doesn't happen, and SCOTUS eventually grants cert, this trial will be likely be pushed into the early summer. Even if they deny cert a second time and let the appellate ruling stand, I think it will still be difficult to keep the March 4 trial date.

But don't forget, Alvin Bragg is ready to go in March with the felony hush money case in Manhattan.

Trump's response is filed

No surprise.

UPDATE 12/21/2023:

Not messing about

Speeding on

Double dose:  In case SCOTUS decides not to take up the immunity case, the District Court has also granted expedited proceedings.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 12/15/2023:

The next logical step

So now we wait for Trump's December 20 deadline to file response to Smith's request to skip Circuit Court deliberations and have the Supreme Court hear the immunity issue pronto.

UPDATE 12/14/2023:  

Trial is currently set for March 4.

UPDATE 12/15/2023:

Jack Smith has placed a bet designed to reveal whether Trump has the Supreme Court up his sleeve.

[...]

There’s every reason to believe that, should the court ever rule on the merits of Trump’s argument, Trump will lose, 7-2. But I don’t know if there are four votes to hear the case (and potentially rule against Trump) now, instead of allowing Trump to delay his reckoning in a manner that is most helpful to him politically

While we’re here, it simply must be said that one of the two justices Trump can certainly count on should recuse himself. Clarence Thomas’s wife, Ginni, actively supported the crimes Trump is being charged with. Thomas shouldn’t be allowed within a yacht’s length of this case..

[...]

With as many as five justices potentially in the Trump column, there’s always a chance that Smith could lose this gambit: The Supreme Court could preemptively rule that Trump is immune from any prosecution. But I would argue that even a ruling in favor of Trump would be better now than later. If the Supreme Court is going to bail Trump out, they might as well get it over with. Spare everybody the show of putting Trump through a trial.

  The Nation

Nah, Elie. In this case, I want to hear that trial, and the country deserves it. There's so much information Jack Smith has that we haven't seen because he had the power to extract it from people who refused to testify to the January 6 Committee. Unless that trial happens, we are likely to never hear it. How many would bother to read Smith's report? All will be glued to a trial.

UPDATE 12/19/2023: