I said this on Xitter, but just way to deal w/Trump is:
1) DC Circuit lifts stay and denies immunity, INCLUDING any claim of double jeopardy.
2) Jack Smith supersedes Trump, adding insurrection (which no longer would pose double jeopardy risk).
3) After a June trial on all that, SCOTUS upholds CO.
I mean, obviously, the chances that 7 Republican judges (don't take your eye off Karen Henderson, who can be a nut) doing what is right for democracy are slim.
It’s plausible. I wonder if Supreme Court declining to hear Anderson v. Griswold, and keeping options open pending DC Curcuit option is not more plausible. My reasoning is that Roberts may want to keep the Court as far away from Trump-related controversies as he can, for as long as he can.
In #3, does CO mean Colorado, or something else? How can a Colorado decision wait until June? Won't that throw every R primary into chaos?
Sincerely perplexed.
Yes. It would. Unless SCOTUS rules AGAINST CO quickly, though, that's true in any casae. And Trump will be on the CO primary ballot, so chaos will be had in any case.
True, tho also depends *how* they rule against CO if they do. An argument that "yes, he's an officer, but nobody's charged him with insurrection" (which is entirely plausible) overturns CO only to the extent Smith doesn't later then charge insurrection
Garland would have no say over it. He is ridiculously hands off on this stuff--which may be why Smith brought in his own SG.
David Weiss testified that he has NEVER spoken to Lisa Monaco, his nominal boss. Ever.
But if SCOTUS looks like they're going to constrain 1512, Smith might supersede only to ensure he can get the nifty evidence tying Trump to the attack into evidence.
That’s a plausible way SCOTUS might rule but it’s not a plausible s3 argument, the whole point of which was to instantly deprive an entire class of rebels and traitors of the ability to hold office with no further proceedings.
Right. I think it's wrong, but I also think it's likely SCOTUS will do whatever rhetorical cartwheels they need to to get to "we are absolutely not going to be responsible for this hot potato" (for political, rather than legal reasons), and back-justify it by hunting for arguments to hang it on
They’d have a lot more institutional room to operate while maintaining credibility if they hadn’t spent so many decades wedding themselves to the idea that any decision departing from text and taking political/historical factors into account is illegitimate.
Yeah. They’re going to overturn. But honestly all the stated rationale is so stupid I think they’re going to come up with something so insane no one e has even thought of it yet. Think: Whelan’s Zillow Rapist theory that is how Rs all explicitly approved Kavanaugh.
IANAL, but here's my guess about what will happen with Trump in CO:
1) SCOTUS says nothing until after the March 5 primary, where Republicans choose Trump
2) SCOTUS decides harm to voters by removing Trump outweighs 14A, and so allows Trump to stay on general election ballot
I honestly think they duck it figuring the Colorado decision is not controlling precedent anywhere else. Either that or they do uphold it but write an opinion the limits it to the factual findings from that single trial + unique aspects of Colorado election law.
Thx. But they *could* grant cert, brief quickly, and decide, say, as soon as early January?
Seems like a sweeping decision in either direction -- he's good everywhere, or he can't be potus, period -- could avoid that chaos, which is why I expect "he's allowed," on some technicality.
If it’s before the convention, then the GOP convention gets to figure out who to nominate.
If it’s after the convention, then whatever procedures the party has in place in event of a nominee’s death might apply?
That makes sense. Everyone (the media) always wants a brokered convention, and now they might get one?
Calling it first: "Rally in Milwaukee July 15. Be there, will be wild!"
Are we talking about double jeopardy in the case of the second impeachment? Is a senate impeachment the same as a court prosecution? It's sort of bizarre if that's the case b/c not EVERYONE in the Senate is a lawyer & yet they would be empowered to act as such.
Correct. It's not the same, but Trump is arguing it is. Alito may back that idea, but no one else seems to.
So if DC Circuit came back and said, impeachment is totally different, then Jack Smith could simply supersede and add insurrection. He's close to treating the Proud Boys as co-conspirators.
Why does anyone have to entertain such an absolutely idiotic argument? It seems on its face to be completely w/o precedent. Am I imagining the fact that they seem to be giving credibility to arguments that no other person could make?
But can anything involving SCOTUS and the right thing be relied upon? And if they somehow find in his favor on immunity, would that effectively remove any and all guardrails on the presidency?
