S.C. Jack Smith Asks the Supreme Court if US Presidents are Immune from Prosecution.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: DBCowboy

The case is coming to them one way or another. The question is whether they hear it now or after the DC Circuit makes their decision on Trump's appeal.

Then they should wait for the appeal.

In my humble opinion

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

First former and current campaigning president to "joke" about being a dictator several times and state he would use the military against his political rivals. What's scary about that lol? As long as he is on your side....

The current administration has shown to use the justice system against a political opponent.

Like a dictator, unless he's on your side.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The public has an interest in this matter being resolved as quickly as possible. Also, if Trump is so confident in his argument, shouldn't he want this to be resolved as quickly as possible as well?

Here is another important part, the second part, of what Jack Smith is asking for in his filing.

Prosecutors also asked the court to decide whether Trump is protected by double jeopardy. Defense lawyers have asserted that because Trump was acquitted by the Senate during his impeachment trial that he cannot be criminally tried for the same alleged actions.

This basically pits the Supreme Court against the Senate, or rather the judicial versus the legislative branches, and Jack Smith is expecting the Supreme Court will rule in their own favor.

If they were to give the Senate the same judicial powers as they hold, they would be diluting their own power. Does the senate impeachment trial rise up to the same level as a criminal trial in court?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
The public has an interest in this matter being resolved as quickly as possible.

I would think the public would have an interest in this matter being resolved the right way with all the facts and pertinent laws getting the right attention rather than just have an interest in speed.

a reply to: WeMustCare

If the Supreme Court rules that U.S. Presidents can be arrested and tried for crimes committed while in office, that would be a reversal of what has been assumed.

Nobody always assumed that a president is immune from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed in office. You're conflating that issue with whether or not a SITTING president can be indicted/arrested.

SCOTUS already settled this with Nixon, when he claimed his tapes were "private" and couldn't be used for impeachment. SCOTUS ruled he had to turn over the tapes, that he wasn't immune and his tapes were fair game.

Which brings me back to Trump's claim that US presidents have absolute immunity. If they did, they couldn't be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.

a reply to: FlyersFan

This does need to be settled, and the public deserves to know before they vote.
So either proceed on schedule to trial, or delay the election until it's complete.

If he is immune, so is Biden.
If he's not, neither is Biden.

Also if so, then I'm running, so I can commit the crime spree of my dreams!

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: DBCowboy

The public has an interest in this matter being resolved as quickly as possible. Also, if Trump is so confident in his argument, shouldn't he want this to be resolved as quickly as possible as well?

I don't pretend to know any legal stuff, but there are rules and procedures and laws that have to be followed.

We can't buck the system just because; Trump.

a reply to: WeMustCare

The supreme court will not take this, plain and simple, and as for Trump until this day he has not been convicted of any crimes.

a reply to: WeMustCare

The Republic is being torn apart at the seams. I said long ago, in a different life here, the democratic party will destroy this republic to stay in power. It's happening before our eyes, as we speak, now.

Only God knows what comes next!

a reply to: DBCowboy

A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.

Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment

Smith is following the rules.

SCOTUS has granted Smith's request to expedite their consideration on whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari. Trump has until December 20th to respond.

a reply to: Threadbarer

The public has an interest in this matter being resolved as quickly as possible.

Quickly as possible miraculously means election season...

Quickly as possible miraculously means millions of documents that they want Trumps team to go through in a quarter of the time that the entire DoJ did.....

Quickly as possible miraculously mean in conjunction with other cases around the nation....


The hackery...it's deeeeeeeep

a reply to: Threadbarer

The DC Circuit has also granted Smith's motion to expedite the schedule in their case. Trump's response is due this Wednesday and the DOJ's is due Thursday.

Has The SCOTUS ever ruled on a "hypothetical" before? 🦓

a reply to: Boomer1947

§ 1001. 18 U.S.C. - Bill Clinton. I am pretty sure lying to Congress about getting blown eating a Big Mac is not a presidential duty.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
SCOTUS has granted Smith's request to expedite their consideration on whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari. Trump has until December 20th to respond.

Details? Source? 😀

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
Has The SCOTUS ever ruled on a "hypothetical" before? 🦓

Yes. They just did, in that case with the would-be wedding website designer, who was worried she might have to take same sex couples, should she start her business. She wanted permission, in advance of starting her business, that she could post a sign saying that she won't do same sex wedding websites.

SCOTUS gave her the win.

But this isn't a hypothetical case. Donald Trump is clogging up the courts right now. He's literally claiming he can't be held accountable for anything he did during office, because he enjoys "absolute immunity".

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: WingDingLuey
Has The SCOTUS ever ruled on a "hypothetical" before? 🦓

Yes. They just did, in that case with the would-be wedding website designer, who was worried she might have to take same sex couples, should she start her business. She wanted permission, in advance of starting her business, that she could post a sign saying that she won't do same sex wedding websites.

SCOTUS gave her the win.

But this isn't a hypothetical case. Donald Trump is clogging up the courts right now. He's literally claiming he can't be held accountable for anything he did during office, because he enjoys "absolute immunity".

Kool. What case?

And Trump hasn't been convicted of anything (yet), so it's hypothetical isn't it. 😀🐒

So it's okay if you say you want to be a dictator, but it's not okay if you don't say anything about being a dictator? Is it the dictator part you hate or just the fact that it's not your turn?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: LeXoXeL

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

I don't think the Supreme Court will touch it, but it begs the question, what is the left so afraid of with Trump?

First former and current campaigning president to "joke" about being a dictator several times and state he would use the military against his political rivals. What's scary about that lol? As long as he is on your side....

The current administration has shown to use the justice system against a political opponent.

Like a dictator, unless he's on your side.