- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS will not fast track Jack Smith’s bull shite case against DJT.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:48 pm to davyjones
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:48 pm to davyjones
quote:
Ideally be persuaded by it/them.
Sure. But they can also be persuaded by radio interviews, TikTok, or whatever they dreamed the night before.
Point being that amicus briefs are usually just avenues for lobbying groups to try and get SCOTUS to adopt their legal research and conclusions.
0
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It’s disappointing IMO because of how pointless the appeals process is in this instance. Completely pointless for the circuit to hear the case. It’s a case of first impression and will be ultimately decided by SCOTUS anyway. I fail to see the merit in demanding that the DC Circuit rule first.
I'm terms of real world efficiency I completely agree.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:51 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
r. That’s the normal course of business.
Right. Which I clearly understand.
This case isn’t the normal course of business, or a normal issue. It’s a novel issue.
Unless of course SCOTUS foresees the DC Circuit ruling quickly after the January hearing on the matter, then granting expedited review from whichever side loses.
Other than having other judges’ clerks do the research for them, I still just don’t see why the SCOTUS wouldn’t get this over with.
They’re punting because they don’t WANT to deal with it. Not because they can’t or shouldn’t.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:51 pm to Indefatigable
It was a confusing request IMO because it seemed to presume that the Court essentially has original jurisdiction to hear the matter, thus allowing for circumvention of the normal appellate court process. Which I don’t believe the Court does have original jurisdiction in this specific instance.
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 5:53 pm
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:55 pm to David_DJS
quote:
You believe more than a few DeSantis supporters are cheering for Jack Smith? I think you're fricked in the head about that.
Says the guy who doesn’t think Hobbs stole the election from Kari Lake.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:56 pm to davyjones
quote:
It was a confusing request IMO because it seemed to presume that the Court essentially has original jurisdiction to hear the matter, thus allowing for circumvention of the normal appellate court process.
Valid presumption in this case, IMO.
I don’t get why I should clutch my pearls for “normal appellate process” in this case.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:56 pm to Indefatigable
quote:You erroneously presume opinions of the lower court would not be taken into consideration at SCOTUS. In fact it is possible, based on strength of findings, this abomination does not even reach SCOTUS.
It’s disappointing IMO because of how pointless the appeals process is in this instance.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:57 pm to Indefatigable
Who’s suggesting you should clutch pearls here? I don’t even know what that means in this context.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In fact it is possible, based on strength of findings, this abomination does not even reach SCOTUS.
What would be the path for this to happen?
Posted on 12/22/23 at 5:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You erroneously presume opinions of the lower court would not be taken into consideration at SCOTUS.
My opinion is that SCOTUS will not ultimately give one flying rats’ arse what the lower courts rule in this matter. They’ll borrow the legal research though.
It’s a constitutional issue of first impression. The only realistic reason to kick the can is because SCOTUS knows the DC circuit will rule quickly in two weeks.
quote:
In fact it is possible, based on strength of findings, this abomination does not even reach SCOTUS.
No, it is not. SCOTUS will rule on this issue.
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 6:02 pm
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:00 pm to davyjones
quote:
Who’s suggesting you should clutch pearls here? I don’t even know what that means in this context.
The people trying to claim that this decision is vital for “normal appellate process” —whatever the hell that is supposed to mean in an issue of first impression for SCOTUS.
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 6:01 pm
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:01 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
No mistake - this is a big loss for the Special Counsel.“Quote. Of course it is; that’s the whole reason for the corrupt prosecution. They’ll regroup.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
egardless, you don’t address my question— why would anyone actually want this issue lingering over the election? If anything, it only hurts Trump.
it doesn't affect Trump one way or the other.
until it goes through the proper procedures, Jack Smith has no standing with SCOTUS.
todays decision was a much bigger blow to Jack Smith's lawfare case against President Trump than it was to everyone's favorite President, Donald John Trump.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:04 pm to Rebel
quote:
it doesn't affect Trump one way or the other.
Well that is simply false.
quote:
until it goes through the proper procedures, Jack Smith has no standing with SCOTUS.
No court ruled that way. The emergency request was denied without reasons.
quote:
todays decision was a much bigger blow to Jack Smith's lawfare case against President Trump than it was to everyone's favorite President, Donald John Trump.
Today’s decision did absolutely nothing but kick the can down the road. It did nothing to harm Jack Smith’s case in any way.
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:07 pm to TDTOM
quote:Lower court rules. SCOTUS says they got it right.
What would be the path for this to happen?
Not likely, given the stakes. But SCOTUS could let a lower court ruling stand.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
It did nothing to harm Jack Smith’s case in any way.
so you think the case will still go to trail in early March 2 days before Super Tuesday?
if it doesn't harm Smith's case, why did he try to do an end around the 9th circuit, go straight to SCOTUS for an appeal for a trail that hasn't even taken place?
moving forward, who gets to decide when our legal system follows the rule of law or goes around the system?
You?
SFP?
HANK?
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:09 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lower court rules. SCOTUS says they got it right.
Not likely, given the stakes. But SCOTUS could let a lower court ruling stand.
So, simply refuse to hear the case?
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:09 pm to Indefatigable
Are you under the impression that one party to federal litigation can simply disallow the other party the ability and right to take advantage of the appellate process, at will? What does “right to appeal” mean to you? And what makes you so confident in your assertion of “issue of first impression” in this particular case?
This post was edited on 12/22/23 at 6:11 pm
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:10 pm to Indefatigable
Every issue that gets before SCOTUS is novel in some way. Absent something irreversible like an execution, I can’t think of a reason to deviate from the normal process of letting a record and opinions develop in the lower courts in order to have a complete and comprehensive examination of the issues.
Posted on 12/22/23 at 6:11 pm to Rebel
quote:
You?
SFP?
HANK?
Throw Kiwihead in there and you have the most arrogant posters on this board....by a lot.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News