Couple Ls for the fat man
-
He gets sentenced in NY (5-4 SCOTUS) and Jack Smith can release his report. (As he should, it’s the law. Remember Hur’s report?)
I guess this will officially make him a convicted felon.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
ETA: Word is that his "sentence" will be --- nothing. He will have the title, much to many people's delight, of "convicted felon,"
Does that change anything, other than bragging rights?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
It makes him historic.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
-
ETA: Word is that his "sentence" will be --- nothing. He will have the title, much to many people's delight, of "convicted felon,"
Does that change anything, other than bragging rights?
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
ETA: Word is that his "sentence" will be --- nothing. He will have the title, much to many people's delight, of "convicted felon,"
Does that change anything, other than bragging rights?
It further legitimizes the saying “anyone can be the President” by demonstrating that even a sentenced convicted felon can.
-
@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
It makes him historic.
I think that damn spell-checker changed histrionic for you.
-
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
@Axtremus said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
Point taken.
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case
His point is that there was no statement of jurisdiction in the appeal - IOW, why SCOTUS should hear this case. The "right way to do this would be to file an appeal in US district court on a writ of prohibition. If that's denied go to SCOTUS."
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
I haven't read the judgement. But the case seemed pretty weak according to Advisory Opinions analysis yesterday. TFM made three arguments: (1) Immunity gives him the right to stay sentencing pending appeal , (2) Some evidence shouldn't have been allowed due to presidential immunity, (3) he's president elect, so he's special.
(1) It's true that in general, claims of immunity are adjudicated before court proceeding start (or continue) because immunity gives you immunity from the process itself. But this doesn't really apply since the crimes he was convicted of occurred before he was president.
(2) Some evidence introduced was from when he was president and might not have been allowed. This is true as far as it goes, but in general sentencing doesn't stop just because a defendant wants to appeal some evidence. You appeal after sentencing.
(3) The constitution doesn't recognize president-elect as a 'citizen+'. And while it's true he is busy interviewing people for roles, this stuff even happens before elections. We have one president at a time, and the fat man aint him.
-
Hysterical.
-
Trump will be known in the history books for his MAGA movement and January 6th. Maybe for presiding over COVID. And his business successes and bankruptcies, and I guess felonies, too. Oh and maybe giving Elon a blowjob, but future kids will claim it's AI.
-
SCOTUS:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010925zr_2d8f.pdf
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the
following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at
President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the
ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing
will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is
relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated
intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a
brief virtual hearing.Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice
Kavanaugh would grant the application.
IOW, the reason SCOTUS declined is because, as I noted above, the appeal process had not run its course.
