cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Bird’s-eye view? I’m lost; please explain.
Supreme Court Anyone?
- Thread starter printer
- Start date
GenericEnigma
Well-Known Member
The vulture GIF.
Budley Doright
Well-Known Member
Good things come to those that wait.hmmmm.
Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation
The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.apnews.com
View attachment 5386204
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Oh! ~slaps forehead~
While it is not a good thing to wish someone ill, I’m indulging a teenytiny hope that he may vacate that seat soon for whatever reason. Be nice to replace his thoroughly corrupt (cough!) presence with a Biden pick.
To adorn the daydream a bit, Justice Garland (who seems much more suited to the bench than heading up DOJ), bump Smith up to AG, and watch indictments come for the legislators who are hip-deep in the insurrection.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
It sounds like Jan 6 defense lawyers are pretty well funded and have some friends on the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments that would overturn convictions of hundreds of insurrections through a challenge to the application of a law that are being used to convict them. Trump is also charged under that law so this affects him too.
Defense lawyers say prosecutors improperly stretched the law, which was enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.
Their defense rests on a strange way they claim a single word should be interpreted:
As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.
From posts in the first article linked in this post, it isn't going well for the defense although Alito seems to be coaching the defense from his seat at the bench:
Alito said Green “may be biting off more than you can chew” by suggesting that the government’s reading of the law doesn’t make sense. “It can certainly be read the way the government reads it, and that might even be the more straightforward reading,” he said.
“You have other arguments,” Alito told Green, to show that the government’s way of looking at the statute was too broad and covers too much behavior. “Do you want to say anything about those?”
Which probably means another challenge and another hearing in front of the SCOTUS. But then again, I'd rather not sit in courtrooms all day. I have tomatoes to get into the ground.
Defense lawyers say prosecutors improperly stretched the law, which was enacted after the exposure of massive fraud and shredding of documents during the collapse of the energy giant Enron.
Their defense rests on a strange way they claim a single word should be interpreted:
As the justices mull how narrowly or broadly prosecutors can apply the statute, the meaning of the word “otherwise” will play a central role.
From posts in the first article linked in this post, it isn't going well for the defense although Alito seems to be coaching the defense from his seat at the bench:
Alito said Green “may be biting off more than you can chew” by suggesting that the government’s reading of the law doesn’t make sense. “It can certainly be read the way the government reads it, and that might even be the more straightforward reading,” he said.
“You have other arguments,” Alito told Green, to show that the government’s way of looking at the statute was too broad and covers too much behavior. “Do you want to say anything about those?”
Which probably means another challenge and another hearing in front of the SCOTUS. But then again, I'd rather not sit in courtrooms all day. I have tomatoes to get into the ground.
Last edited by a moderator:
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters
The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on the legality of obstruction charges lodged against some 300 rioters arrested for breaking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The court's conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was aimed at corporate accounting fraud, can be used more broadly to prosecute those who obstruct "any official proceeding," including Congress' 2021 certification of President Biden's election victory.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch noted that the law made it a crime to destroy or conceal documents to impair an "official proceeding," but they voiced doubt over extending that to any disruptions of a proceeding.
If someone "pulls a fire alarm" to delay a vote in Congress, is that a federal felony subject to 20 years in prison, Gorsuch asked.
While the justices sounded divided, most of the conservatives suggested they were skeptical of upholding the obstruction charges.
Such a ruling would deal a blow to the Jan. 6 prosecutions, but it would not prevent punishing them for their actions.
More than 1,200 rioters were arrested for the Jan. 6 break-in at the Capitol.
Most were charged with assaulting the police officers who were on duty or with disorderly and disruptive conduct. Some were also charged with carrying dangerous or deadly weapons.
A few hundred were also charged with seeking to obstruct an official proceeding.
One of those was Joseph Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer, who said on social media that he expected the attack on the Capitol "might get violent" but that it was needed "to send a message that we the people hold the real power."
When Fischer was arrested, he was charged with six counts of assault and disruption as well as a seventh charge of obstruction, a charge which could send him to prison for several years.
A federal judge rejected the obstruction charge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals restored it in a 2-1 decision.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Fischer's public defender contending the obstruction charge should be thrown out on the grounds that the law protects only documents and evidence, not the proceeding itself.
At issue is how to interpret two clauses in the law. It states that it is a crime if someone "corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."
Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said the Jan. 6 rioters intended to obstruct Congress from tallying the electoral votes to certify President Biden's victory in the 2020 election.
This was "obstructive conduct" and it is exactly what the words of the law say, she argued.
But the chief justice disagreed. The obstruction clause "doesn't stand alone," he said. It is controlled by the earlier reference to documents and records, he said.
www.yahoo.com
The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on the legality of obstruction charges lodged against some 300 rioters arrested for breaking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The court's conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was aimed at corporate accounting fraud, can be used more broadly to prosecute those who obstruct "any official proceeding," including Congress' 2021 certification of President Biden's election victory.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch noted that the law made it a crime to destroy or conceal documents to impair an "official proceeding," but they voiced doubt over extending that to any disruptions of a proceeding.
If someone "pulls a fire alarm" to delay a vote in Congress, is that a federal felony subject to 20 years in prison, Gorsuch asked.
While the justices sounded divided, most of the conservatives suggested they were skeptical of upholding the obstruction charges.
Such a ruling would deal a blow to the Jan. 6 prosecutions, but it would not prevent punishing them for their actions.
More than 1,200 rioters were arrested for the Jan. 6 break-in at the Capitol.
Most were charged with assaulting the police officers who were on duty or with disorderly and disruptive conduct. Some were also charged with carrying dangerous or deadly weapons.
A few hundred were also charged with seeking to obstruct an official proceeding.
One of those was Joseph Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer, who said on social media that he expected the attack on the Capitol "might get violent" but that it was needed "to send a message that we the people hold the real power."
When Fischer was arrested, he was charged with six counts of assault and disruption as well as a seventh charge of obstruction, a charge which could send him to prison for several years.
A federal judge rejected the obstruction charge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals restored it in a 2-1 decision.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Fischer's public defender contending the obstruction charge should be thrown out on the grounds that the law protects only documents and evidence, not the proceeding itself.
At issue is how to interpret two clauses in the law. It states that it is a crime if someone "corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."
Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said the Jan. 6 rioters intended to obstruct Congress from tallying the electoral votes to certify President Biden's victory in the 2020 election.
This was "obstructive conduct" and it is exactly what the words of the law say, she argued.
But the chief justice disagreed. The obstruction clause "doesn't stand alone," he said. It is controlled by the earlier reference to documents and records, he said.
Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters
Supreme Court conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act can be used to prosecute those who attacked the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I remember when Hillary was mocked for saying "it depends what "is", is.Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters
The Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on the legality of obstruction charges lodged against some 300 rioters arrested for breaking into the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
The court's conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was aimed at corporate accounting fraud, can be used more broadly to prosecute those who obstruct "any official proceeding," including Congress' 2021 certification of President Biden's election victory.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch noted that the law made it a crime to destroy or conceal documents to impair an "official proceeding," but they voiced doubt over extending that to any disruptions of a proceeding.
If someone "pulls a fire alarm" to delay a vote in Congress, is that a federal felony subject to 20 years in prison, Gorsuch asked.
While the justices sounded divided, most of the conservatives suggested they were skeptical of upholding the obstruction charges.
Such a ruling would deal a blow to the Jan. 6 prosecutions, but it would not prevent punishing them for their actions.
More than 1,200 rioters were arrested for the Jan. 6 break-in at the Capitol.
Most were charged with assaulting the police officers who were on duty or with disorderly and disruptive conduct. Some were also charged with carrying dangerous or deadly weapons.
A few hundred were also charged with seeking to obstruct an official proceeding.
One of those was Joseph Fischer, an off-duty Pennsylvania police officer, who said on social media that he expected the attack on the Capitol "might get violent" but that it was needed "to send a message that we the people hold the real power."
When Fischer was arrested, he was charged with six counts of assault and disruption as well as a seventh charge of obstruction, a charge which could send him to prison for several years.
A federal judge rejected the obstruction charge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals restored it in a 2-1 decision.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard an appeal from Fischer's public defender contending the obstruction charge should be thrown out on the grounds that the law protects only documents and evidence, not the proceeding itself.
At issue is how to interpret two clauses in the law. It states that it is a crime if someone "corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so."
Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said the Jan. 6 rioters intended to obstruct Congress from tallying the electoral votes to certify President Biden's victory in the 2020 election.
This was "obstructive conduct" and it is exactly what the words of the law say, she argued.
But the chief justice disagreed. The obstruction clause "doesn't stand alone," he said. It is controlled by the earlier reference to documents and records, he said.
Supreme Court casts doubt on obstruction charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters
Supreme Court conservatives questioned whether the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act can be used to prosecute those who attacked the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
Now the right wing traitors are straight-faced when they argue that the word "otherwise" means something other than otherwise. Oh well.
Did somebody say they didn't wish Clarence Thomas would just keel over and die? It wasn't me.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Me, I think. For context, I opined that wishing someone harm is not cool.
However, his leaving the bench (something that I doubt he would do voluntarily) is something I think would be beneficial. He has been shown to be a willing tool of aspiring fascists, and (shy of assassination) any way to remove him from his current, nearly unconditional authority … is almost certain to be good for the republic.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
You really think they would be able to get it sat though? I would bet that there are a couple current 'Democrats' that would burn their cover and tank anyone Biden picks.
It is real bullshit they are pulling the Muslim-phobia tanking another of Biden's picks.
https://apnews.com/article/muslim-judge-biden-nomination-fight-adeel-mangi-6891b1523928390184fb71afac47e9ee
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I’ll have to go a bit DIY on you and say “first, gain a comfy majority in the legislature …”
printer
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
A second opinion I pulled up because the vox article seemed beyond bizarre to me.
It's real. It is bizarre but it's real. Anybody who acts illegally during a protest, be they actual protesters, opportunistic criminals or counter protesters who slip into the lines of protesters put the organizer of the protest in serious legal or financial jeopardy. They do in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
In the middle of this mix is a recent decision by the SCOTUS that should set aside the McKesson decision. Bracketing the time when the McKesson decision was made and when the SCOTUS made this ruling, the Supreme Court made another ruling:
“In Counterman, the Court made clear that the First Amendment bars the use of ‘an objective standard’ like negligence for punishing speech.”
An appeal will be made to the Fifth District Court and this should get sorted out. But for now, protesters in those states are going to be facing legal hassles beyond anything since the Civil Rights Era.
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court Weighs Idaho's Strict Abortion Ban in Medical Emergencies
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday wades back into the battle over abortion access in arguments pitting Idaho's strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency care.
The justices are set to hear arguments in an appeal by Idaho officials after a lower court ruled that the 1986 U.S. law at issue, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), takes precedence over the state's near-total ban. President Joe Biden's administration has urged the justices to uphold that ruling.
The dispute has prompted the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to revisit the legal landscape created with the June 2022 decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that returned abortion law back to the states.
Idaho is one of seven states to put in place in the past two years a near-total abortion ban with no exception to protect the health of pregnant patients, according to a U.S. Justice Department filing.
In Idaho, a so-called abortion "trigger" law adopted in 2020 automatically took effect upon Roe's reversal. Idaho's law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother's death. Doctors face two to five years in prison and suspension or revocation of their medical license if convicted of violating it.
At the same time, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to "stabilize" patients with emergency medical conditions. At issue in the case is whether Idaho's ban must yield to EMTALA when a doctor determines an abortion is the necessary "stabilizing care."
Following Roe's demise, Biden's administration issued federal guidance stating that EMTALA takes precedence over state abortion bans when the two conflict, and filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho's ban.
Boise-based U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in 2022 blocked enforcement of Idaho's law in cases of abortions needed to avoid putting the woman's health in "serious jeopardy" or risking "serious impairment to bodily functions."
The Supreme Court in January let Idaho enforce its law while also agreeing to decide its legality.
Idaho's Republican attorney general and top Republican state lawmakers in court papers told the Supreme Court that the state's law and EMTALA are not actually at odds.
The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by the end of June.
It is not the only abortion case the justices are due to decide during this presidential election year. The court is expected to rule by the end of June in a challenge by anti-abortion groups and doctors seeking to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a drug approved by federal regulators in 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday wades back into the battle over abortion access in arguments pitting Idaho's strict Republican-backed abortion ban against a federal law that ensures that patients can receive emergency care.
The justices are set to hear arguments in an appeal by Idaho officials after a lower court ruled that the 1986 U.S. law at issue, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), takes precedence over the state's near-total ban. President Joe Biden's administration has urged the justices to uphold that ruling.
The dispute has prompted the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, to revisit the legal landscape created with the June 2022 decision overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that returned abortion law back to the states.
Idaho is one of seven states to put in place in the past two years a near-total abortion ban with no exception to protect the health of pregnant patients, according to a U.S. Justice Department filing.
In Idaho, a so-called abortion "trigger" law adopted in 2020 automatically took effect upon Roe's reversal. Idaho's law bans nearly all abortions unless needed to prevent a mother's death. Doctors face two to five years in prison and suspension or revocation of their medical license if convicted of violating it.
At the same time, EMTALA requires hospitals that receive funding under the federal Medicare program to "stabilize" patients with emergency medical conditions. At issue in the case is whether Idaho's ban must yield to EMTALA when a doctor determines an abortion is the necessary "stabilizing care."
Following Roe's demise, Biden's administration issued federal guidance stating that EMTALA takes precedence over state abortion bans when the two conflict, and filed a lawsuit challenging Idaho's ban.
Boise-based U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in 2022 blocked enforcement of Idaho's law in cases of abortions needed to avoid putting the woman's health in "serious jeopardy" or risking "serious impairment to bodily functions."
The Supreme Court in January let Idaho enforce its law while also agreeing to decide its legality.
Idaho's Republican attorney general and top Republican state lawmakers in court papers told the Supreme Court that the state's law and EMTALA are not actually at odds.
The Supreme Court's ruling is expected by the end of June.
It is not the only abortion case the justices are due to decide during this presidential election year. The court is expected to rule by the end of June in a challenge by anti-abortion groups and doctors seeking to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a drug approved by federal regulators in 2000.
printer
Well-Known Member
What a surprise.
Female Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban
A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a split by gender as well as ideology during the nearly two hours of argument.
The four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back the hardest against Idaho’s assertion that its law, which prohibits doctors from performing an abortion except when a woman’s life is in danger, supersedes the federal emergency care statute EMTALA.
Doctors face up to five years in prison for violating Idaho’s law.
The liberal justices in particular asked detailed questions about what would constitute a medical emergency, zeroing in on complications that would rob a woman of her reproductive organs or put her at risk of sepsis.
The case centers on a federal law known as EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.
The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, EMTALA says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.
Barrett had sharp questions for Idaho’s attorney Joshua Turner over just how much discretion doctors really have to make decisions in medical emergencies that may not be life threatening.
Turner argued that the laws allows decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, but Barrett was critical of that argument and accused Turner of “hedging.”
Barrett’s questioning doesn’t always give an indication of how she will vote, and the three liberal justices need at least two conservatives to side with them in order for the Biden administration to win the case.
DEVELOPING
thehill.com
Female Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban
A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a split by gender as well as ideology during the nearly two hours of argument.
The four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back the hardest against Idaho’s assertion that its law, which prohibits doctors from performing an abortion except when a woman’s life is in danger, supersedes the federal emergency care statute EMTALA.
Doctors face up to five years in prison for violating Idaho’s law.
The liberal justices in particular asked detailed questions about what would constitute a medical emergency, zeroing in on complications that would rob a woman of her reproductive organs or put her at risk of sepsis.
The case centers on a federal law known as EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.
The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, EMTALA says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.
Barrett had sharp questions for Idaho’s attorney Joshua Turner over just how much discretion doctors really have to make decisions in medical emergencies that may not be life threatening.
Turner argued that the laws allows decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, but Barrett was critical of that argument and accused Turner of “hedging.”
Barrett’s questioning doesn’t always give an indication of how she will vote, and the three liberal justices need at least two conservatives to side with them in order for the Biden administration to win the case.
DEVELOPING
Female Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban
A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a split by gender as well as ideology during the near…
thehill.com
OldMedUser
Well-Known Member
Seeing how Barrett was one of the 5 justices, and a Catholic, that originally voted to overturn Roe v Wade it seems she's having 2nd thoughts about her decision.What a surprise.
Female Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban
A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a split by gender as well as ideology during the nearly two hours of argument.
The four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back the hardest against Idaho’s assertion that its law, which prohibits doctors from performing an abortion except when a woman’s life is in danger, supersedes the federal emergency care statute EMTALA.
Doctors face up to five years in prison for violating Idaho’s law.
The liberal justices in particular asked detailed questions about what would constitute a medical emergency, zeroing in on complications that would rob a woman of her reproductive organs or put her at risk of sepsis.
The case centers on a federal law known as EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires federally funded hospitals to provide stabilizing care to emergency room patients no matter their ability to pay.
The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, EMTALA says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.
Barrett had sharp questions for Idaho’s attorney Joshua Turner over just how much discretion doctors really have to make decisions in medical emergencies that may not be life threatening.
Turner argued that the laws allows decisions to be made on a case-by-case basis, but Barrett was critical of that argument and accused Turner of “hedging.”
Barrett’s questioning doesn’t always give an indication of how she will vote, and the three liberal justices need at least two conservatives to side with them in order for the Biden administration to win the case.
DEVELOPING
Female Supreme Court justices push back most strongly on Idaho abortion ban
A divided Supreme Court seemed skeptical that Idaho’s strict abortion ban conflicts with a federal emergency care law, but there appeared to be a split by gender as well as ideology during the near…
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., drew attention for one particular comment to her: “And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern.”
Barrett insisted that as a judge, she would honor binding precedents, and would not let her religious beliefs inappropriately alter her judicial decisions.
She is a member of the ecumenical charismatic group People of Praise, which has an estimated 2,000 adult members. The group has priest members in two dioceses and it operates several schools. Her membership in the group was the subject of some scrutiny by the media during her confirmation process. Some have called the group a “cult” and criticized its former practice of referring to husbands and wives as “heads” and “handmaidens,” both Scriptural references.
Read About the 5 Supreme Court Justices Who Voted to Overturn Roe v. Wade
'Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,' said Thomas, who added, 'the Constitution itself is silent on abortion."
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court to consider whether Trump is immune from prosecution
The Supreme Court will weigh the limits of presidential immunity Thursday in an unprecedented and historic case with significant implications for former President Trump, his legal fights and the 2024 race for the White House. Trump is pushing an argument that has already been rejected by two lower courts: that even as a former executive, he remains immune from prosecution for official actions he took while holding office. Prosecutors see the novel argument as one that would put presidents beyond the reach of the criminal justice system even after they leave office.
On the bench are three conservatives Trump nominated to the court — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — but the court’s verdict could cut against claims from the presumptive GOP nominee that he should not be prosecuted. It will be the first time justices take to the bench to consider an appeal arising from one of Trump’s four criminal indictments, and their decision could dictate whether those not at trial ever reach a jury.
Critics of Trump say a decision in favor of the president’s arguments would change the fabric of power in the country, giving far too much power to presidents in and out of office. “It’s so fundamental to the presidency, where a president is truly trying to corrupt the system and perpetuate himself in office,” said John Dean, the former White House counsel to then-President Nixon and a frequent critic of Trump. “If Trump can get away with doing what he did, we don’t have a democracy,” Dean warned.
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that the presidency cannot function without immunity, suggesting it would leave officeholders open to extortion and unfair retribution. “Without Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will no longer exist. Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday.
Federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith argue that presidents, like other citizens, must be held to account if they commit crimes, a reality they don’t see as chilling presidential power. “The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a former President be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law. To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law — including the President,” prosecutors wrote in court filings. “Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks.”
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the timing of the decision could impact whether any of Trump’s other criminal cases make it to a jury before November. If Trump retakes the White House, he is expected to grind his indictments to a halt. Trump is polling narrowly ahead of President Biden in most of the key swing states in the presidential election. Both sides expect a tight race, with Trump’s legal travails adding to a sense of uncertainty over the election.
Thursday’s oral arguments will take place as Trump’s hush money trial in a New York state court also takes place, creating a unique split screen in American history: The first American president to face a criminal trial will do so as some of his attorneys argue for his immunity at the Supreme Court. Trump had wanted to attend Thursday’s arguments, but the judge in his hush money criminal trial refused to excuse Trump from Thursday’s proceedings in New York. “He’s required to be here. He’s not required to be at the Supreme Court,” Judge Juan Merchan said.
Trump will be represented by D. John Sauer, who has become a central piece of Trump’s appellate team in his various legal entanglements. Sauer is the former Missouri solicitor general, and Thursday will be his second Supreme Court argument. Representing Smith is Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases at the high court and was also part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Though on opposite sides, the lawyers agree on one point: look to the Nixon era.
Trump’s lawyers heavily cite Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Supreme Court found ex-presidents have immunity from civil damages claims derived from their official acts in office. Trump argues that same doctrine should apply in the criminal context. “The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in court papers. Trump has argued that presidents should only be permitted to be prosecuted if they are first impeached and convicted by Congress — the reverse of what he argued when facing his second impeachment.
Prosecutors pushed back, contending that “strong institutional checks” in the criminal system alleviate the concerns in the Fitzgerald case of an ex-president being forced to face a plethora of lawsuits from private parties. Prosecutors additionally claim Nixon’s acceptance of a pardon from then-President Ford for Watergate concedes that ex-presidents can face criminal prosecution. “I don’t think there’s any question that he thought a president could be prosecuted,” Dean said of Nixon. “And it’s clear Ford did. At the time that there was, in that era, it was just common knowledge that the president was vulnerable to criminal prosecution.”
The potentially landmark case is being closely watched not only for how it could doom Trump’s charges but also for its impact on the timing of his trials for them. A swift rejection of the former president’s arguments would kick the case back to the district court, reigniting the currently paused proceedings in the case. Lower courts were highly critical of Trump’s arguments, something legal observers see as a signal the conservative-majority Supreme Court may well do the same. But the justices will provide a glimpse into their thinking when they take the bench Thursday.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in rejecting Trump’s claim. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal trial on his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election, said the role of president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” The high court by tradition would hand down its opinion by the end of June, leaving a narrow window for Trump to still go to trial. But Smith, while not directly mentioning the election, has called on the justices to act more expeditiously.
And legal observers who want to see Trump convicted have raised concerns about another scenario: one in which the high court rules that presidential immunity exists generally but leaves it to the lower courts to determine whether the specific facts of Trump’s indictments are covered. Such an outcome could spark another lengthy legal battle that might further stall the former president’s trial. Even if the Supreme Court acts quickly, Smith could be left with only a narrow window to bring the case to trial. The Justice Department frowns on taking major actions that could influence an election within 60 days of the contest — by Sept. 5 for this year.
An analysis by Just Security suggested that even early action by the Supreme Court would likely punt the election interference case to Aug. 2, while a decision in the summer months would mean the trial might not start until around Sept. 20. One of Smith’s prosecutors in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago case, Jay Bratt, recently suggested the norm — which is not spelled out in the Justice Department manual — only applies to bringing new indictments in the two months before the election. “We are in full compliance with the Justice Manual,” Bratt said in March.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court will weigh the limits of presidential immunity Thursday in an unprecedented and historic case with significant implications for former President Trump, his legal fights and the 2024 race for the White House. Trump is pushing an argument that has already been rejected by two lower courts: that even as a former executive, he remains immune from prosecution for official actions he took while holding office. Prosecutors see the novel argument as one that would put presidents beyond the reach of the criminal justice system even after they leave office.
On the bench are three conservatives Trump nominated to the court — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — but the court’s verdict could cut against claims from the presumptive GOP nominee that he should not be prosecuted. It will be the first time justices take to the bench to consider an appeal arising from one of Trump’s four criminal indictments, and their decision could dictate whether those not at trial ever reach a jury.
Critics of Trump say a decision in favor of the president’s arguments would change the fabric of power in the country, giving far too much power to presidents in and out of office. “It’s so fundamental to the presidency, where a president is truly trying to corrupt the system and perpetuate himself in office,” said John Dean, the former White House counsel to then-President Nixon and a frequent critic of Trump. “If Trump can get away with doing what he did, we don’t have a democracy,” Dean warned.
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly insisted that the presidency cannot function without immunity, suggesting it would leave officeholders open to extortion and unfair retribution. “Without Immunity, the Presidency, as we know it, will no longer exist. Many actions for the benefit of our Country will not be taken. This is in no way what the Founders had in mind,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Monday.
Federal prosecutors led by special counsel Jack Smith argue that presidents, like other citizens, must be held to account if they commit crimes, a reality they don’t see as chilling presidential power. “The effective functioning of the Presidency does not require that a former President be immune from accountability for these alleged violations of federal criminal law. To the contrary, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law — including the President,” prosecutors wrote in court filings. “Nothing in constitutional text, history, precedent, or policy considerations supports the absolute immunity that petitioner seeks.”
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, the timing of the decision could impact whether any of Trump’s other criminal cases make it to a jury before November. If Trump retakes the White House, he is expected to grind his indictments to a halt. Trump is polling narrowly ahead of President Biden in most of the key swing states in the presidential election. Both sides expect a tight race, with Trump’s legal travails adding to a sense of uncertainty over the election.
Thursday’s oral arguments will take place as Trump’s hush money trial in a New York state court also takes place, creating a unique split screen in American history: The first American president to face a criminal trial will do so as some of his attorneys argue for his immunity at the Supreme Court. Trump had wanted to attend Thursday’s arguments, but the judge in his hush money criminal trial refused to excuse Trump from Thursday’s proceedings in New York. “He’s required to be here. He’s not required to be at the Supreme Court,” Judge Juan Merchan said.
Trump will be represented by D. John Sauer, who has become a central piece of Trump’s appellate team in his various legal entanglements. Sauer is the former Missouri solicitor general, and Thursday will be his second Supreme Court argument. Representing Smith is Michael Dreeben, who has argued more than 100 cases at the high court and was also part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. Though on opposite sides, the lawyers agree on one point: look to the Nixon era.
Trump’s lawyers heavily cite Nixon v. Fitzgerald, where the Supreme Court found ex-presidents have immunity from civil damages claims derived from their official acts in office. Trump argues that same doctrine should apply in the criminal context. “The threat of future prosecution and imprisonment would become a political cudgel to influence the most sensitive and controversial Presidential decisions, taking away the strength, authority, and decisiveness of the Presidency,” Trump’s attorneys wrote in court papers. Trump has argued that presidents should only be permitted to be prosecuted if they are first impeached and convicted by Congress — the reverse of what he argued when facing his second impeachment.
Prosecutors pushed back, contending that “strong institutional checks” in the criminal system alleviate the concerns in the Fitzgerald case of an ex-president being forced to face a plethora of lawsuits from private parties. Prosecutors additionally claim Nixon’s acceptance of a pardon from then-President Ford for Watergate concedes that ex-presidents can face criminal prosecution. “I don’t think there’s any question that he thought a president could be prosecuted,” Dean said of Nixon. “And it’s clear Ford did. At the time that there was, in that era, it was just common knowledge that the president was vulnerable to criminal prosecution.”
The potentially landmark case is being closely watched not only for how it could doom Trump’s charges but also for its impact on the timing of his trials for them. A swift rejection of the former president’s arguments would kick the case back to the district court, reigniting the currently paused proceedings in the case. Lower courts were highly critical of Trump’s arguments, something legal observers see as a signal the conservative-majority Supreme Court may well do the same. But the justices will provide a glimpse into their thinking when they take the bench Thursday.
“For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution,” the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote in rejecting Trump’s claim. “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal trial on his efforts to stay in power after the 2020 election, said the role of president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” The high court by tradition would hand down its opinion by the end of June, leaving a narrow window for Trump to still go to trial. But Smith, while not directly mentioning the election, has called on the justices to act more expeditiously.
And legal observers who want to see Trump convicted have raised concerns about another scenario: one in which the high court rules that presidential immunity exists generally but leaves it to the lower courts to determine whether the specific facts of Trump’s indictments are covered. Such an outcome could spark another lengthy legal battle that might further stall the former president’s trial. Even if the Supreme Court acts quickly, Smith could be left with only a narrow window to bring the case to trial. The Justice Department frowns on taking major actions that could influence an election within 60 days of the contest — by Sept. 5 for this year.
An analysis by Just Security suggested that even early action by the Supreme Court would likely punt the election interference case to Aug. 2, while a decision in the summer months would mean the trial might not start until around Sept. 20. One of Smith’s prosecutors in Trump’s Mar-a-Lago case, Jay Bratt, recently suggested the norm — which is not spelled out in the Justice Department manual — only applies to bringing new indictments in the two months before the election. “We are in full compliance with the Justice Manual,” Bratt said in March.
Supreme Court to consider whether Trump is immune from prosecution
The Supreme Court will weigh the limits of presidential immunity Thursday in an unprecedented and historic case with significant implications for former President Trump, his legal fights and the 20…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Trump says NY Judge Merchan 'thinks he is above the Supreme Court' after barring him from immunity arguments
Former President Trump said New York Judge Juan Merchan "thinks he is above the Supreme Court," after "prohibiting" him from attending arguments Thursday on presidential immunity, telling Fox News Digital it is "the most important case in many years" before the high court.
The former president and presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee spoke exclusively to Fox News Digital on Wednesday after spending the last two days in a Manhattan courtroom for opening arguments and witness testimony in his unprecedented criminal trial.
Trump had requested to attend arguments at the Supreme Court when it holds oral arguments about the former president's immunity on Thursday, but Judge Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, rejected that request.
"Because he thinks he is above the Supreme Court, he is prohibiting me from going to the presidential immunity hearing where some of the great legal scholars will be arguing the case — the most important case in many years on the Supreme Court," Trump told Fox News Digital.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith out of his investigation into 2020 election interference.
Former President Donald Trump exits Trump Tower in New York City, on April 15, as jury selection is set to begin in the New York trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. (Probe-Media for Fox News Digital)
"Without presidential immunity, the presidency becomes a ceremonial position only, it will be decimated," he continued. "He’s prohibiting me from going. He is a radical left Democrat."
When Trump requested to attend the Supreme Court arguments last week, Merchan told his attorney: "Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there."
"But a trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal," Merchan said last week, requiring the former president to be in his Manhattan courtroom on Thursday, instead of at the high court in Washington, D.C.
A ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue of presidential immunity is expected by late June.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
"Virtually every legal scholar and expert in the country said that this case should not have been brought, that there was no crime, that everything was done properly and that this is a case that should be dropped immediately," Trump told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
"It’s an embarrassment to Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party who are duly standing behind it and the judge is totally conflicted — totally conflicted," he said.
"If falsifying a business record is because a bookkeeper wrote down ‘legal expense’ in paying a legal fee, that’s not falsifying," Trump told Fox News Digital. "They call it a legal expense — and that’s what it was. It was a legal expense."
He added: "It was legal fees paid to a lawyer — that’s called a legal expense."
Trump’s criminal trial stemming from Smith’s investigation has been put on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.
Meanwhile, Trump also requested to skip court on May 17 to attend the high school graduation of his youngest son, Barron.
"The other thing is, the judge is prohibiting me from going to my son’s graduation from high school — my son Barron, who has worked very hard and he’s a great student," Trump told Fox News Digital. "He can’t have his father at his graduation because of a vicious judge that’s totally conflicted."
Trump added: "He should never be allowed to do this case."
Trump and his attorneys had sought Merchan to recuse himself from the case due to his daughter’s Democrat-affiliated political work.
Merchan’s daughter, Loren, has a leadership role and ownership stake at Authentic Campaigns Inc., which Trump lawyers say "services exclusively Democrat clients" and is "the #21 ranked vendor in the country in connection with the 2024 election."
Some of Authentic’s top "featured clients" on its website include campaigns associated with Trump opponents — including "President Biden, Vice President Harris, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Congressman [Adam] Schiff, Congressman [Hakeem] Jeffries, Congressman [Dan] Goldman, Congresswoman [Lauren] Underwood, and Congresswoman [Summer] Lee." The website also features its work for the Democrat-backed "Senate Majority PAC," and the Democrat-backed "House Majority PAC."
Merchan said he saw no basis for recusal.
As for Barron’s graduation, Merchan has yet to formally grant or deny Trump’s request, and instead has said he will make his decision based on how the trial is going.
www.foxnews.com
Former President Trump said New York Judge Juan Merchan "thinks he is above the Supreme Court," after "prohibiting" him from attending arguments Thursday on presidential immunity, telling Fox News Digital it is "the most important case in many years" before the high court.
The former president and presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee spoke exclusively to Fox News Digital on Wednesday after spending the last two days in a Manhattan courtroom for opening arguments and witness testimony in his unprecedented criminal trial.
Trump had requested to attend arguments at the Supreme Court when it holds oral arguments about the former president's immunity on Thursday, but Judge Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, rejected that request.
"Because he thinks he is above the Supreme Court, he is prohibiting me from going to the presidential immunity hearing where some of the great legal scholars will be arguing the case — the most important case in many years on the Supreme Court," Trump told Fox News Digital.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule in June on whether Trump is immune from prosecution by Special Counsel Jack Smith out of his investigation into 2020 election interference.
Former President Donald Trump exits Trump Tower in New York City, on April 15, as jury selection is set to begin in the New York trial in Manhattan Criminal Court. (Probe-Media for Fox News Digital)
"Without presidential immunity, the presidency becomes a ceremonial position only, it will be decimated," he continued. "He’s prohibiting me from going. He is a radical left Democrat."
When Trump requested to attend the Supreme Court arguments last week, Merchan told his attorney: "Arguing before the Supreme Court is a big deal, and I can certainly appreciate why your client would want to be there."
"But a trial in New York Supreme Court… is also a big deal," Merchan said last week, requiring the former president to be in his Manhattan courtroom on Thursday, instead of at the high court in Washington, D.C.
A ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue of presidential immunity is expected by late June.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
"Virtually every legal scholar and expert in the country said that this case should not have been brought, that there was no crime, that everything was done properly and that this is a case that should be dropped immediately," Trump told Fox News Digital on Wednesday.
"It’s an embarrassment to Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party who are duly standing behind it and the judge is totally conflicted — totally conflicted," he said.
"If falsifying a business record is because a bookkeeper wrote down ‘legal expense’ in paying a legal fee, that’s not falsifying," Trump told Fox News Digital. "They call it a legal expense — and that’s what it was. It was a legal expense."
He added: "It was legal fees paid to a lawyer — that’s called a legal expense."
Trump’s criminal trial stemming from Smith’s investigation has been put on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on whether Trump is immune from prosecution.
Smith charged the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Those charges stemmed from Smith’s investigation into whether Trump was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in August.
Meanwhile, Trump also requested to skip court on May 17 to attend the high school graduation of his youngest son, Barron.
"The other thing is, the judge is prohibiting me from going to my son’s graduation from high school — my son Barron, who has worked very hard and he’s a great student," Trump told Fox News Digital. "He can’t have his father at his graduation because of a vicious judge that’s totally conflicted."
Trump added: "He should never be allowed to do this case."
Trump and his attorneys had sought Merchan to recuse himself from the case due to his daughter’s Democrat-affiliated political work.
Merchan’s daughter, Loren, has a leadership role and ownership stake at Authentic Campaigns Inc., which Trump lawyers say "services exclusively Democrat clients" and is "the #21 ranked vendor in the country in connection with the 2024 election."
Some of Authentic’s top "featured clients" on its website include campaigns associated with Trump opponents — including "President Biden, Vice President Harris, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, Congressman [Adam] Schiff, Congressman [Hakeem] Jeffries, Congressman [Dan] Goldman, Congresswoman [Lauren] Underwood, and Congresswoman [Summer] Lee." The website also features its work for the Democrat-backed "Senate Majority PAC," and the Democrat-backed "House Majority PAC."
Merchan said he saw no basis for recusal.
As for Barron’s graduation, Merchan has yet to formally grant or deny Trump’s request, and instead has said he will make his decision based on how the trial is going.
Trump says NY Judge Merchan 'thinks he is above the Supreme Court' after barring him from immunity arguments
EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump blasted New York Judge Juan Merchan for “prohibiting" him from attending arguments Thursday at the U.S. Supreme Court on presidential immunity, while telling Fox News Digital it is “the most important case in many years" before the high court.