I got my wish! Let’s hope the not-so-Supreme Court decides not to lollygag. I hope everyone understand that my “what took him so long?” was laudatory rather than critical.
The DOJ response to his SCOTUS appeal for a stay is in. 6 days early.
As expected, it’s fierce.
Highlights:
– “He can go pound sand” – SCOTUS should deny his request for a stay and let trial proceedings resume (rationale in the filing)
– “Remember December” – SCOTUS declined…
— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) February 14, 2024
Jack Smith filing. (PDF)
Jack Smith has had about enough of citizen Trump’s bullshit.
Open thread.
cain
I’m gonna wait for the legal eagles to weigh in on this one. I don’t know what to think and slightly afraid of what SCOTUS is going to say in this matter. What scares me is “leaving room for appeal”
Alison Rose
The One-Third Supreme Court.
Also fuck yeah Jack Smith.
WaterGirl
@cain: All the legal eagles I’ve seen think SCOTUS will respond within 2 weeks, which seems like an impossibly long time to me.
And they all think the immunity won’t fly.
What’s in question is how long they screw around with this before getting to a final ruling – whether that’s denying cert, affirming the appeals court ruling, or granting cert while keeping Chutkan’s DC case from proceeding with the case, or granting cert and taking the case, during which time Chutkan’s trial is on perpetual hold.
WaterGirl
PSA: If you donated to the Ukraine thermometer anytime after the first raffle announcement on 2/4 and thru 5pm Eastern today, it’s not too late to send me the email letting me know which quilts you want raffle tickets for.
Jackie
So since Jack Smith responded ASAP rather than wait until the midnight hour next Tues, can the Supremes get started earlier than next Wed to make their deliberations and hopefully “fast” decision?
smith
@cain: The legal eagles I follow online seem to think Smith has a strong argument. Teri Kanefield’s review of his filing: “It sparkles.”
Formerly disgruntled in Oregon
@smith: Teri’s good
ETA: Teri’s Mastodon:
https://techhub.social/@[email protected]
WaterGirl
@Jackie: Yes. They could pick back up on Jack Smith’s December filing where Jack Smith asked SCOTUS to grant cert and bypass Trumps whole “i want a stay so I can request an en bank hearing from the appeals court” bullshit, and cut right to the chase.
bbleh
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon: I have only one question about it, which maybe some local Legal Eagles could shed light upon. She says it needs 5 votes for a stay, but what if 4 of them want to treat it as a request for cert and grant that?
WaterGirl
@bbleh: It takes 4 votes to grant cert.
It takes 5 for a stay – but they could grant cert with or without a stay.
Does that help?
WaterGirl
Unrelated, but it’s an open thread… Since I announced on 2/4 that the raffle would be coming up, BJ has donated this amount to Ukraine. Impressive, BJ peeps!
$8,794.00
Trivia Man
@WaterGirl: Im an optimist so im hoping for something from their next conference n Friday . I can dream!
Manyakitty
@WaterGirl: wow! That’s real money. (Nods approvingly)
WaterGirl
WaterGirl
@Trivia Man: See my comment at #14.
citizen Trump gets to respond and SCOTUS hasn’t given them a timeline / deadline for responding to Jack Smith response in this emergency filing. delay, delay, delay.
Odie Hugh Manatee
I’m no lawyer but I like what I’m reading. Jack pulls no punches, hits hard and I’m only on page 15. I really hope that someone reads this to Citizen Trump so he has some more sleepless nights.
Monday, appeal. Tuesday, accept & give Jack a week to respond. Wednesday, Jack drops mic and smiles.
BOOM, there it is.
bbleh
@WaterGirl: sorta as I suspected, which means the matter could be delayed indefinitely by FOUR Justices, not five, which therefore NO DOES NOT HELP!! 😱
WaterGirl
@bbleh: How do you get to 4 justices can delay the whole thing?
4 can grant cert, it still takes 5 for a stay, and there is *supposed* to be a good chance that things will go the way of the person who is submitting the appeal in order for them to grant a stay.
However, now that we have a Supreme Court that doesn’t whatever the hell they want, that’s small comfort.
Shalimar
If Kavanaugh supports presidential immunity after making his entire career from being on Ken Starr’s staff investigating Clinton, can we impeach the evil asshole?
Jackie
@Odie Hugh Manatee: That’s citizen Trump. No capital “c” unless it’s the beginning of a sentence. I heard/read that TIFG HATED being referred to as citizen😂
bbleh
@WaterGirl: but isn’t a stay automatic if cert is granted? IIRC the DC appeals court opinion said so.
bbleh
@Jackie Oooh, how about “common citizen Trump.” “That Trump guy.” “Some guy named … Drumpt?”
Mockery is still the best against authoritarians. “Nuns … no sense of humor.”
karen marie
@WaterGirl: I’m half hoping SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor. Biden could then drop a bomb on Mar a Lago, killing Trump and his family, and Republicans would have to shut up unless they want to be next.
kindness
Jack Smith sounds like he’s had enough of Supreme Court issues.
Timill
@bbleh: Private citizen Trump, or Private Trump for short.
Sheldon Vogt
@karen marie: free helicopter rides for Scotus!
cain
@Formerly disgruntled in Oregon:
You know that mastodon has grown popular when you have 39k followers.
geg6
@karen marie:
For real.
geg6
@Sheldon Vogt:
I’m down with that. You know they love their freebies!
SiubhanDuinne
@Jackie:
Harry Truman’s 1960 autobiography (as opposed to his official memoirs) was titled Mr. Citizen. He was enormously proud of reclaiming the “citizen” honorific after he left the White House.
Ruckus
I thought it was citizen trump. No real reason it should be capitalized…….
wjca
He was also someone who served his country, in combat (WW I). So hardly a potential model for The draft-dodging IFG.
Chris Johnson
@karen marie: Nah. The principle of the thing would suck. I mean, if they did, then I would definitely enjoy it if Biden bombed Mar-A-Lago WITH the relevant justices from a great height, but I would be enjoying it in a ‘fiddling while Rome burns’ way.
All of my NOPE. These people do not understand that it isn’t just an arm-wrestle of who uses power against power, it’s a governmental system. A surprisingly effective one… if we can keep it.
Russia went the way they did because they took capitalism and they did go that way with it. Mob capitalism as the strongest power stomping on the rest. We set ’em up to do that but in fairness we were at war with them for a long time and it was asking too much to ask us to flip and be nice. Would have been better if we had.
Here’s where we see if the Supreme Court is willing to drop itself, like a bomb, on America to destroy the very system that makes the Court relevant. I don’t think it’s impossible for it to do this but I think they’d have to be either psychopaths, or at gunpoint, to do so. I’m not convinced they could be threatened enough to do it, or that they’re MAGA enough to do it for Trump.
Like I’ve been saying on Bluesky recently: villains don’t work together nicely. Villains aren’t good at being self-sacrificing for a greater cause. The SC killing itself to spare Trump legal inconvenience would be shocking already, never mind what they’d be letting Biden do (which doesn’t matter, because IOKIYAR and it would be assumed that Biden still wouldn’t get to do anything interesting)
Manyakitty
@Ruckus: that’s how I’ll use it. Haven’t capitalized his name in ages.
Burnspbesq
@bbleh:
Then that’s what will happen. That strikes me as one of the less likely scenarios, however. That would allow trial prep to resume while the Supremes consider whether there should be a trial.
My preference would be for them to treat the stay request as a petition for cert, grant it, and summarily affirm the D.C. Circuit. But I’d settle for them treating the stay request as a petition for cert and denying it.
Burnspbesq
The principal author of the response was probably Michael Dreeben, a highly experienced appellate lawyer (over 30 years in the Solicitor General’s office, and over 100 Supreme Court oral arguments) on Smith’s staff.
WaterGirl
@Jackie: Excellent point!
I have made all my Citizens citizen.
Paul in KY
@Chris Johnson: There’s just no way the Supreme Court is going to rule TFG is ‘immune’ in the way he wishes. That means our POTUS is also immune in that manner, etc. etc.