US Politics: Chaos Made to Border

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Only if SCOTUS takes up the case on the merits. They may not want to touch it given judges on both sides are saying the same thing plus former judges, legal scholars and well, everyone but him. That seems more likely to me than them taking it up and declaring a former President immune. If they deny cert, trial likely in late spring I think.

Any Supreme Court Justice who hears this case has to wonder about a president, later on not liking a ruling that was given down,  having him/her assassinated, with immunity mind you, to open up a spot for a more amenable justice.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

47 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I think they have to take the case.  There is a real chance that Trump is convicted on at least one criminal charge, and if that happens, we need this issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court, whatever the ruling, and much preferably before any conviction.  Trump would appeal any conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, and the SC denying cert or picking up the case at that point would be 10x worse than just handling the case now.  

Do we really? We can can already pencil in two votes in his favor and three against with the remaining four being question marks, but probably more likely to side with the former. 

This should have been decided by the RNC long before we got here, but they've made their stance clear, party over country for power. 

[Mexal]

17 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Any Supreme Court Justice who hears this case has to wonder about a president, later on not liking a ruling that was given down,  having him/her assassinated, with immunity mind you, to open up a spot for a more amenable justice.

I’m not sure this is crossing anyone’s mind though if they agree with the merits that he has absolute immunity, they should be prepared for him to throw some people through their window Putin style. I suspect Trump would be president until he died if he had absolute immunity for everything and I just don’t see how SCOTUS, especially conservative justices, would ever affirm that belief and render their power moot.

51 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I think they have to take the case.  There is a real chance that Trump is convicted on at least one criminal charge, and if that happens, we need this issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court, whatever the ruling, and much preferably before any conviction.  Trump would appeal any conviction all the way to the Supreme Court, and the SC denying cert or picking up the case at that point would be 10x worse than just handling the case now.  

By not hearing the case, they are affirming the district and appeals court opinions, both of which are the same. If they stay the case pending writ, they have to find some way that he has a chance to win by the merits. I don’t see any way they take up the case, just to write an opinion that basically says the same thing as the two courts before them. If they take it up, they’re looking for an angle to either grant him immunity or send it back to the district court to look at additional questions (e.g., if he has partial immunity, what’s the threshold test to apply in future situations and does Trump fail that immunity test) which will fundamentally delay any trial until after the election. This is possible but I find it highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will take up the writ just to affirm the two courts below them.

Trump could appeal his conviction to the SCOTUS but two things will happen. 1. He will need to appeal it on a reasoning that’s not full immunity and 2. He will be convicted pending appeal. He can have that vacated but until then, he’s a convicted felon.

[Kalbear]

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I’m not sure this is crossing anyone’s mind though if they agree with the merits that he has absolute immunity, they should be prepared for him to throw some people through their window Putin style. I suspect Trump would be president until he died if he had absolute immunity for everything and I just don’t see how SCOTUS, especially conservative justices, would ever affirm that belief and render their power moot.

The very easy stance: the constitution has a process (impeachment) to deal with the POTUS, and that is sufficient to deal with the above issue. If representatives believe that he should not be prosecuted for throwing people out windows, well, we have a way to deal with those representatives. 

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

By not hearing the case, they are affirming the district and appeals court opinions, both of which are the same. If they stay the case pending writ, they have to find some way that he has a chance to win by the merits. I don’t see any way they take up the case, just to write an opinion that basically says the same thing as the two courts before them. If they take it up, they’re looking for an angle to either grant him immunity or send it back to the district court to look at additional questions (e.g., if he has partial immunity, what’s the threshold test to apply in future situations and does Trump fail that immunity test) which will fundamentally delay any trial until after the election. This is possible but I find it highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will take up the writ just to affirm the two courts below them.

I think that it's more likely that they take it up and make it clear that this is a decision that is solely about this one issue and that it sets no precedence, which is what they do when they're feeling particularly cowardly about their bullshit. 

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Trump could appeal his conviction to the SCOTUS but two things will happen. 1. He will need to appeal it on a reasoning that’s not full immunity and 2. He will be convicted pending appeal. He can have that vacated but until then, he’s a convicted felon.

I doubt very seriously that he'll be convicted, especially in that timeframe. 

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Super pleased with the Michigan mass shooters mother being convicted and being held responsible.

Ive long advocated and whole heartedely agree that parents bare a responsibility when their offspring commit egregious acts.

Im perfectly fine with being held accountable were I in such shoes and hope this spreads to more such legal accountability from truancy to shoplifting and bullying.

Your kids a nuisance to society, were locking you up for being a pos parent, I absolutely embrace that, its about time.

WTF? 

[Mudguard]

37 minutes ago, Mexal said:

By not hearing the case, they are affirming the district and appeals court opinions, both of which are the same. If they stay the case pending writ, they have to find some way that he has a chance to win by the merits. I don’t see any way they take up the case, just to write an opinion that basically says the same thing as the two courts before them. If they take it up, they’re looking for an angle to either grant him immunity or send it back to the district court to look at additional questions (e.g., if he has partial immunity, what’s the threshold test to apply in future situations and does Trump fail that immunity test) which will fundamentally delay any trial until after the election. This is possible but I find it highly unlikely that the SCOTUS will take up the writ just to affirm the two courts below them.

Trump could appeal his conviction to the SCOTUS but two things will happen. 1. He will need to appeal it on a reasoning that’s not full immunity and 2. He will be convicted pending appeal. He can have that vacated but until then, he’s a convicted felon.

Denying cert doesn't mean the case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  It means the Fed Circuit's decision still holds, but also means the legal issue has not been decided by the Supreme Court.  SC has many reasons why they deny cert which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, and they normally don't explain why cert has been denied.  I do think it's possible, and this would be my preference, that they issue a summary affirmance in response to the appeal.  This would get them on the record as agreeing with the legal ruling set forth by the Fed. Circuit and would cause the least amount of delay to the trial.

If the SC simply denies cert, Trump would be able to appeal a conviction using the same immunity arguments.  SC could deny cert again, or take up the case,  or issue a summary affirmance.  This occurring just before election day would be a nightmare.

I think the only scenario where denying cert works for the SC is if Trump is acquitted at trial.  They would have then avoided getting involved in the case while not affecting the outcome of the trial.  

[Mexal]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

The very easy stance: the constitution has a process (impeachment) to deal with the POTUS, and that is sufficient to deal with the above issue. If representatives believe that he should not be prosecuted for throwing people out windows, well, we have a way to deal with those representatives. 

I think that it's more likely that they take it up and make it clear that this is a decision that is solely about this one issue and that it sets no precedence, which is what they do when they're feeling particularly cowardly about their bullshit. 

I doubt very seriously that he'll be convicted, especially in that timeframe. 

That's the easy stance if you're Trump's lawyers but from everything I've read and every decision that has been issued on this, that stance has very little actual backing. Impeachment is not a criminal court and in this case specifically, he literally said that if he is acquitted from being impeached, he could be tried by a court of law. His own lawyer's words sink his argument.

I think if they do take it up, it's not to solely focus on this issue but more to bring some level of immunity threshold to the discussion, which is kinda saying the same thing as you. Former presidents are immune for discretionary acts while in office but not ministerial, this means, x, y and z. Apply said test to Trump and he fails so it's ok to take him to trial. if they do that, he won't go to trial for awhile.

If they don't take it up, trial will likely start in June or July and go through Sept / Oct (according to legal guys). He'd be convicted (if he is convicted) before the election. They may take it up just to avoid that on the basis above, who knows.

39 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Denying cert doesn't mean the case has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  It means the Fed Circuit's decision still holds, but also means the legal issue has not been decided by the Supreme Court.  SC has many reasons why they deny cert which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, and they normally don't explain why cert has been denied.  I do think it's possible, and this would be my preference, that they issue a summary affirmance in response to the appeal.  This would get them on the record as agreeing with the legal ruling set forth by the Fed. Circuit and would cause the least amount of delay to the trial.

If the SC simply denies cert, Trump would be able to appeal a conviction using the same immunity arguments.  SC could deny cert again, or take up the case,  or issue a summary affirmance.  This occurring just before election day would be a nightmare.

I think the only scenario where denying cert works for the SC is if Trump is acquitted at trial.  They would have then avoided getting involved in the case while not affecting the outcome of the trial.  

I understand what you're saying, but in this case, if they deny cert given how high profile it is, I don't see why they'd grant cert later down the road with the same petitioner and the same immunity arguments. They would be effectively washing their hands of this and I can't see how a conviction would change the arguments.

Any kind of trial before the election is a nightmare for 30% of the population regardless of what SCOTUS does but it's also necessary to A. hold him accountable or not and B. resolve a major indictment of a Presidential candidate for the voting public. Pushing it just seems so much worse of an option because if he wins, he won't be tried and he'll take it 900x further to prevent any scenario where he ever could. 

Anyway, who knows. All speculation at this point.

[Conflicting Thought]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Super pleased with the Michigan mass shooters mother being convicted and being held responsible.

Ive long advocated and whole heartedely agree that parents bare a responsibility when their offspring commit egregious acts.

Im perfectly fine with being held accountable were I in such shoes and hope this spreads to more such legal accountability from truancy to shoplifting and bullying.

Your kids a nuisance to society, were locking you up for being a pos parent, I absolutely embrace that, its about time.

thats your emotions talking, i think. what is the logical conclution of that. are you locking away parents that have kids that are gang members?

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

 

[Mudguard]

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I understand what you're saying, but in this case, if they deny cert given how high profile it is, I don't see why they'd grant cert later down the road with the same petitioner and the same immunity arguments. They would be effectively washing their hands of this and I can't see how a conviction would change the arguments.

Any kind of trial before the election is a nightmare for 30% of the population regardless of what SCOTUS does but it's also necessary to A. hold him accountable or not and B. resolve a major indictment of a Presidential candidate for the voting public. Pushing it just seems so much worse of an option because if he wins, he won't be tried and he'll take it 900x further to prevent any scenario where he ever could. 

Anyway, who knows. All speculation at this point.

I just think it's better for the country for the legal issue to be definitively settled now rather than at the 11th hour when emotions are going to be running a lot higher.  But the timing of the trial complicates things, so I'm hoping for a summary affirmance, which can be issued right after reviewing the petition for cert.  No need for further briefing or oral arguments.

We should know pretty soon how the SC is going to handle this.  Probably before the end of the month.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Comedy. Good job House Republicans. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Comedy. Good job House Republicans. 

What happened?

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Super pleased with the Michigan mass shooters mother being convicted and being held responsible.

Ive long advocated and whole heartedely agree that parents bare a responsibility when their offspring commit egregious acts.

Im perfectly fine with being held accountable were I in such shoes and hope this spreads to more such legal accountability from truancy to shoplifting and bullying.

Your kids a nuisance to society, were locking you up for being a pos parent, I absolutely embrace that, its about time.

What is... Shouting From A Balcony in Munich?

I mean, I'm down with a lot of things... but going to jail over your kid not showing up at school??

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What happened?

 

20 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Comedy. Good job House Republicans. 

This?

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/border-bill-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Going back to the Michigan verdict.

If you give your underage kid a firearm, then you should be responsible for what he does with it. Esp. if there are that many red flags, and you mouth off to school officials and then instead of taking away his new toy you send him an encouraging text lol not mad at you, but make sure you don't get caught. Then you have acted so without any regard for the lives of the other children at that school that you most certainly should spend some time in jail.

Edited February 7 by A Horse Named Stranger

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This?

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/border-bill-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html

Yes, it's next level stupidity especially when it's combined with Trump and the House killing the border deal. For all of Pelosi's faults, she would never have let this happen. Mike Johnson is so bad at his job. Shit, most kids in HS class government know not to bring something up if they didn't have all the votes needed. Total own goal here. 

Edited February 7 by Mr. Chatywin et al.

[The Anti-Targ]

5 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Going back to the Michigan verdict.

If you give your underage kid a firearm, then you should be responsible for what he does with it. Esp. if there are that many red flags, and you mouth off to school officials and then instead of taking away his new toy you send him an encouraging text lol not mad at you, but make sure you don't get caught. Then you have acted so without any regard for the lives of the other children at that school that you most certainly should spend some time in jail.

Seems the parent is rightly convicted of being an accessory to murder, as would anyone who did these things regardless of familial connection, not convicted of being a delinquent parent. So the right to be a delinquent parent remains, so long as that delinquency doesn't include committing actual crimes of your own.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

 

This should have been decided by the RNC long before we got here, but they've made their stance clear, party over country for power. 

Ok, now that's funny.  

------

Re: the immigration bill.  Sort of baffling that they passed on giving the Secretary of Homeland Security (still can't believe that those words actually refer to a US Cabinet post) the ability to be able to deport any undocumented migrant, without any review, during a border emergency, which was a provision of that bill.  That's like the wet dream of Trump and his base.  

Honestly the GOP might have inadvertantly done the right thing rejecting this bill.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Yes, it's next level stupidity especially when it's combined with Trump and the House killing the border deal. For all of Pelosi's faults, she would never have let this happen. Mike Johnson is so bad at his job. Shit, most kids in HS class government know not to bring something up if they didn't have all the votes needed. Total own goal here. 

Will they keep bringing this up until Buck caves?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Will they keep bringing this up until Buck caves?

Who knows, but it's a losing strategy.