|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
Since Jack Smith already tried to jump over the appeal process and go directly to the Supreme Court because of the tremendous importance of the issue at hand, I would love to see what argument he will use against Trump’s inevitable appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 217
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 217 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. lolol You are one of the dumber bots around. lol We'll see who's right in short order. Trump needs to appeal by February 12, 2024. That's six days from now. He'll need 4 votes from the 9 Justices for Certiarari to be granted. It's more likely than not that the appeal is denied. No, dipschit, he gets to ask for a rehearing and then a rehearing in banc. I believe he has 45 days to do so. Then, assuming they rule against him, then he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they deny the en banc or rule against him, then he gets to appeal. It will be months before the Supreme Court even begins to consider his appeal. Even if he is granted a hearing En Banc, it won't help him. There is no stay in effect during that process. The case goes back to the trial court immediately and proceeds from there while he waits for his En Banc hearing. And En Banc hearings are never granted when the 3 judge panel issues an order Per Curiam (unanimous and a single written opinion). It's the Supreme Court or bust for Trump. It's more likely than not the Supreme Court denies Cert.
Last edited by WarAdmiral; 02/06/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. lolol You are one of the dumber bots around. lol We'll see who's right in short order. Trump needs to appeal by February 12, 2024. That's six days from now. He'll need 4 votes from the 9 Justices for Certiarari to be granted. It's more likely than not that the appeal is denied. No, dipschit, he gets to ask for a rehearing and then a rehearing in banc. I believe he has 45 days to do so. Then, assuming they rule against him, then he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they deny the en banc or rule against him, then he gets to appeal. It will be months before the Supreme Court even begins to consider his appeal. Even if he is granted a hearing En Banc, it won't help him. There is no stay in effect during that process. The case goes back to the trial court immediately and proceeds from there while he waits for his En Banc hearing. And En Banc hearings are never granted when the 3 judge panel issues an order Per Curiam (unanimous and a single written opinion). It's the Supreme Court or bust for Trump. It's more likely than not the Supreme Court denies Cert. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court sides with Trump. ANY DC court is hostile to Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,127
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 8,127 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. lolol You are one of the dumber bots around. lol We'll see who's right in short order. Trump needs to appeal by February 12, 2024. That's six days from now. He'll need 4 votes from the 9 Justices for Certiarari to be granted. It's more likely than not that the appeal is denied. No, dipschit, he gets to ask for a rehearing and then a rehearing in banc. I believe he has 45 days to do so. Then, assuming they rule against him, then he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they deny the en banc or rule against him, then he gets to appeal. It will be months before the Supreme Court even begins to consider his appeal. Even if he is granted a hearing En Banc, it won't help him. There is no stay in effect during that process. The case goes back to the trial court immediately and proceeds from there while he waits for his En Banc hearing. And En Banc hearings are never granted when the 3 judge panel issues an order Per Curiam (unanimous and a single written opinion). It's the Supreme Court or bust for Trump. It's more likely than not the Supreme Court denies Cert. I'm guessing that the Supreme Court sides with Trump. ANY DC court is hostile to Trump. I'm not so sure, they may pass and kick the can.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. lolol You are one of the dumber bots around. lol We'll see who's right in short order. Trump needs to appeal by February 12, 2024. That's six days from now. He'll need 4 votes from the 9 Justices for Certiarari to be granted. It's more likely than not that the appeal is denied. No, dipschit, he gets to ask for a rehearing and then a rehearing in banc. I believe he has 45 days to do so. Then, assuming they rule against him, then he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they deny the en banc or rule against him, then he gets to appeal. It will be months before the Supreme Court even begins to consider his appeal. Even if he is granted a hearing En Banc, it won't help him. There is no stay in effect during that process. The case goes back to the trial court immediately and proceeds from there while he waits for his En Banc hearing. And En Banc hearings are never granted when the 3 judge panel issues an order Per Curiam (unanimous and a single written opinion). It's the Supreme Court or bust for Trump. It's more likely than not the Supreme Court denies Cert. Did you even read the order? If the en banc is granted, the order specifically said mandate would be recalled. Try reading sometime. Then if he is denied an en banc or ruled against, he still gets to appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. So the Constitutional Office of the Presidency and All Powers Granted are is Null n Void .. That must be why Coco Mellon hasn’t closed the Border.. He doesn’t have an Authority.. By Jobe I think Your onto Something.. Hahahaha Hahahaha Hahahaha
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,312
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,312 |
Theater, let me know when the lead starts flying because we don’t vote our way out of this mess.
"Life is tough, even tougher if your stupid"
John Wayne
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 217
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: May 2021
Posts: 217 |
The US Supreme Court should overturn that. I doubt the Supreme Court will even accept an appeal. There needs to be grounds for an appeal. lolol You are one of the dumber bots around. lol We'll see who's right in short order. Trump needs to appeal by February 12, 2024. That's six days from now. He'll need 4 votes from the 9 Justices for Certiarari to be granted. It's more likely than not that the appeal is denied. No, dipschit, he gets to ask for a rehearing and then a rehearing in banc. I believe he has 45 days to do so. Then, assuming they rule against him, then he gets to appeal to the Supreme Court. If they deny the en banc or rule against him, then he gets to appeal. It will be months before the Supreme Court even begins to consider his appeal. Even if he is granted a hearing En Banc, it won't help him. There is no stay in effect during that process. The case goes back to the trial court immediately and proceeds from there while he waits for his En Banc hearing. And En Banc hearings are never granted when the 3 judge panel issues an order Per Curiam (unanimous and a single written opinion). It's the Supreme Court or bust for Trump. It's more likely than not the Supreme Court denies Cert. Did you even read the order? If the en banc is granted, the order specifically said mandate would be recalled. Try reading sometime. Then if he is denied an en banc or ruled against, he still gets to appeal. I did read the Order. You're missing the point entirely. The mere filing of an application for a hearing en banc does not stay the mandate. Trump needs a stay of the mandate. And he can only get that from the Supreme Court. In other words, even if he seeks a hearing en banc it could take 12 months to get a hearing. By then it would be too late. Besides, like I stated earlier, the DCCC does not grant hearings en banc when the prior order is an unanimous Per Curiam decision. There is no dispute between judges that needs further clarification. But do what you must to hold out hope.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579 |
Ok so a President isn’t Above the Law..
Hahahaha Hahahaha
The Problem there is No Law Above or Below ..
This Marxist Vigilantes Judges
Ya
You ain’t seen Nothing Yet ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 7,233 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 7,233 Likes: 3 |
Here's The Scoop:Former President Donald Trump — and indeed any other former president — may be prosecuted for alleged crimes they committed while in office, a federal appeals court panel ruled Tuesday. Trump quickly vowed an appeal, which could be at the Supreme Court by Monday. “For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant,” the D.C. Circuit judges wrote. “But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.” “We conclude that the interest in criminal accountability, held by both the public and the Executive Branch, outweighs the potential risks of chilling Presidential action and permitting vexatious litigation,” the panel concluded. The ruling affirms U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s historic conclusion that former presidents may be prosecuted for crimes they committed in office, even if those alleged crimes arguably related to their official duties. Trump had argued that former presidents could not be prosecuted for such actions without first being impeached and convicted by Congress. The judges put their decision on hold only until Monday to allow Trump to ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity fight on an emergency basis. If he does so, the decision won’t take effect until the high court acts on his request, the appeals panel decreed.PoliticoThe court essentially stayed its own ruling, pending a punt to the Supreme Court.
Last edited by SupFoo; 02/06/24.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,251 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,251 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,528 Likes: 6
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,528 Likes: 6 |
Some liberals agreed with some other liberals?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8,579 |
Dude
There are No Liberals only Marxist/Maoist and your Next Door Marxist Sympathziers that Vote for Them
This ain’t Rocket Science..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 243
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Mar 2022
Posts: 243 |
I’m curious for those of you who think Trumps argument is accurate, that ANYTHING he did as president, is fair game and he has immunity for it, would you feel the same if we were talking about Biden or Obama, or Clinton?
I know this question will piss people off, but absolute immunity (for politicians) is a concept that scares the [bleep] out of me. It should scare the [bleep] out of everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 14,810 Likes: 5 |
I’m curious for those of you who think Trumps argument is accurate, that ANYTHING he did as president, is fair game and he has immunity for it, would you feel the same if we were talking about Biden or Obama, or Clinton?
I know this question will piss people off, but absolute immunity (for politicians) is a concept that scares the [bleep] out of me. It should scare the [bleep] out of everyone. For the president? Yeah, it has to be that way. If not, we’re going to see a replay of the late stage Roman republic. Every president will be prosecuted by his enemies when he is out of power. Once that happens enough times, someone will decide like Caeser did, that as a matter of self preservation he can’t give up power. Ruin and civil war will follow as surely as night follows day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 7,233 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 7,233 Likes: 3 |
that ANYTHING he did as president, is fair game and he has immunity for it, The argument is "in performance of his duties as president". Not anything.
|
|
|
|
|
530 members (160user, 01Foreman400, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 1beaver_shooter, 1badf350, 64 invisible),
2,446
guests, and
1,178
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,315
Posts18,487,306
Members73,968
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
