I might not be a Constitutional scholar, but...

[Silent3]

...I think it's quite fair to say the clear and obvious point of our Constitution, and the war for independence for that matter, was to make sure our country didn't have a king or a dictator. That everyone, the President included, had to be constrained by checks and balances, and had to be answerable to the law.

The type of immunity from prosecution Trump seeks would effectively grant the Presidency dictatorial power, especially with a complaint Congress, or a Congress made compliant by, under immunity, killing off whichever members of the Congress got in the way.

Therefore it is self-apparent such immunity was never intended, and it can't be allowed. Even if you consider the Constitution "a living document", there would be no sense in pretending dictatorship is a proper direction for any evolution of the Constitution to follow.

The Constitution sure as hell shouldn't be treated as a "gotcha" document, where, if you find just the right way to twist words or apply precedents, you can rightfully come out and say, "Yeah, we know you didn't want to have a dictatorship, but you just weren't careful enough to avoid this one neat trick for creating a dictatorship when you wrote the Constitution, so sorry, you lose!"

So what the fuck is the hold up?

I understand a need for federal judges to be much more deep and precise in their analysis than my dashed-off internet post, but please, in the end, there is only one non-corrupt conclusion at which we can reasonably arrive.

[gab13by13]

1. The delay isn't over deciding immunity.

[Silent3]

3. It's sure a lot of time for dotting Is and crossing Ts

Yes, I know that it takes some time to make a carefully reasoned, scholarly argument for a decision.

But this long? Let's be reasonable. It isn't and shouldn't be that complicated.

Which leads me to rightfully worry the delay is deliberate foot-dragging and/or excessive ass-covering.

If the supposed concern is making the argument so bulletproof SCOTUS can't or won't reverse it, that seems a fool's errand. Only a corrupt SCOTUS would decide in favor of Trump, one corrupt enough to do as it wishes regardless of how well a lower-court decision is written.

[Bluethroughu]

15. And then should be silenced by a King Biden packing it

With 20 Liberal progressive judges ready to write a Constitution with rule of law that promotes the general welfare, and mandates a 10 year term limit, ethics, and rules for SCOTUS.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

2. I think the Courts deliberating on Immunity and A14sec3 are properly prudent

I don't know because 1) I'm not privy to their discussions, and 2) I'm not a lawyer.

But I think they want to have every avenue for appeal blocked so that the Supreme Court will look at the inevitable appeal by tRump and will agree so much with the other Courts against tRump that they won't even take the cases or vote 9-0 against tRump.

I think that would be very desirable, to close those issues. I think the Amendment 14, section 3 is dynamite in that I think tRump is excluded but magas do not. It is more likely to be heard by the Supremes and may get the 3 hardcore con votes, but I think there is an excellent chance tRump may be sunk before the convention.

The tricky bit about 14s3 is to avoid a ruling that opens doors for states to arbitrarily exclude candidates because they are the opposite colour to the Legislatures. I don't know how judges will thread that needle.

[Silent3]

4. I believe we're discussing different cases

I'm talking about the ridiculous Presidential immunity gambit, not whether or not Trump can be on the ballot.

Edit: I see you did bring up immunity in your post title, but immunity was my only topic of discussion, not the ballot issue which you seemed to focus on more.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

5. I AM talking about both cases. I thought I was clear the Immunity case has better prospects for us

I think the immunity case is so ridiculous I didn't spend much time on.

However, issues like "what are Presidential duties" have to be teased out and examined and dealt with in detail and that takes time.

[brush]

11. The 14A, Sec. 3 is self-executing. It's right in the text of it and the Constitution.

There should be no voting from legislatures. If candidates aren't insurrectionist traitors, they have nothing to worry about.

That's what's written in the Constitution. SCOTUS should've taken over and ruled on this immediately, the same with trump's bogus plea for immunity for anything a president does, but apparently the 6 magats on SCOTUS are trying to figure out how to get around what the text of 14A, Sec. 3 says... to benefit trump of course.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

14. Yes, we know, Courts know and Supremes know

But it has to be all laid out in detail, all the objections anticipated and answered in detail, with references to cases and judgements.

Excruciating detail so that there is no wiggle room.

[brush]

19. Agreed. Here's hoping Colorado and Maine have done all those things.

As you say, the SCOTUS 6 will still look for wiggle room.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. Replying to you, I got an idea that the delay might actually speed things up

So I made a thread about it: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100218653437

[getagrip_already]

6. Its possible the judges agree 100% on the law..

But not on the politics.

It's possible one judge may just be dead set against allowing this case to go to trial before the election.

It's also possible that's a bunch of hooey and they are just writing a very long and tedious brief.

So are we in the twilight zone or the editors club?

We won't know until, and if, they hand down a decision.

[ShazzieB]

12. This is a very difficult situation.

The stakes are very high, and there's not a dadburned thing we can do except wait. That's a recipe for frustration if there ever was one.

Add that to the suspense over all the other pending court cases against TSF, and the clock ticking relentlessly toward November, and the frustration incrases geometrically. But we are going to have to live through this, somehow. We literally have no choice.

For me, what helps most is focusing on the big picture and not letting myself obsess over the details of individual cases. Right now, the big picture is worrisome, but this whole thing is far from over. There is plenty to worry about, but there are also reasons to be hopeful. I'd rather focus on the latter and let the worries take care of themselves, especially since there is not one single solitary thing I can do about the worries.

I'm not saying any of this is easy, believe me! I'm just sharing what works for me personally.

All that said, I hope to hell we hear something from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals SOON, because this has been going on way too long.

[Mr.Bill]

7. All I can say is if the SCOTUS

find that the president has this absolute immunity, just imagine all the great things Biden could do.

I was going to say I can't believe Trump is too stupid to realize this, but after thinking it over I guess he is.

[brush]

27. Yep, must've forgotten he's no longer president and Biden could...

have him deported/imprisoned/executed even if a ruling comes down that the president is immune and can do anything he/she wants.

[Iggo]

8. 'Cause England was bogus, and if we didn't get some cool rules, pronto, we'd be bogus, too!

[3825-87867]

9. Nah. The delay is Alito.

There's not a lot of precent on 16th Centurt British Law so he's probably going back to the 1100s in Europe or Asia or even Constsntine (Biblical and/or Catholic) and maybe Aztec or Mayan writings to fine some obscure passage that can vindicate his decision to obviate the 14th.

[ShazzieB]

10. Alito has nothing to do with this.

We're not talking about a Supreme Court case at this point. We're waiting for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to hand down their decision on TSF's immunity claims. TSF is likely to appeal their decision to the Supreme Court, but that hasn't happened yet.

Alito might very well be burrowing through dusty antiquated tomes in preparation for TSF's eventual appeal to SCOTUS (I would definitely not put it past him), but that would not have any impact on how long it's taking the DC Appeals Court to make their ruling.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

16. Alito has everything to do with it. They are Alito-proofing it

Of course I don't really know, but I surmise.

[ShazzieB]

30. Oh yes, in that sense

Alito probably does have a lot to do with it!

[Bluethroughu]

18. Witchy women.

His answer to 2023 realities.

He's illegitimate, and his mind fabled and flawed by the influx of fabulous stakes of cash, trips, and real estate.

Corrupt.

[Bluethroughu]

13. I've been pissed since 1/6.

Him and his whole Seditious Conspiracy crew of idiots should have been arrested that day along with any "Congressmen" included and willing in the plan.

Next the bunch of fools that shart their brains from their butt to come and fight his battle, because they're to dumb, racist, or angry to see the truth when it stands right in front of them in a soiled smelly diaper.

[AverageOldGuy]

17. Since Jan 6 I've been saying . . . . . .

. . . in every case I know of where a coup failed, those who plotted and executed the failed coup faced one of three fates:

1. EXECUTION. Always swift, sometimes on the spot.
2. IMPRISONMENT. For a long time; swift decision; sometimes they die in jail not necessarily of natural causes.
3. EXILE. Transported to a foreign country willing to take them; along with families and Swiss bank accounts. Occasionally they die in the foreign country not of natural causes, but they never return home.

I'm all in favor of #1 but at this point I'd be happy with anything I can get . . . sadly, I'm not expecting much of anything.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Determining that the president is immune is no more making him a king or dictator

than it makes diplomats king when we grant immunity to them and their families. Immunity is only one aspect of being a king or dictator, and even if the courts decide he is immune there are other means of addressing a would-be king than prosecuting them. (And, FWIW, it is not even a necessary elemet to being a dictor - lots of places that have dictators and kings often prosecute them after they leave office.)

Not to mention that there is way more to decide than the simple quesiton of immunity. The first question is whether the court even has the authority to hear the case. It could decide it has no authority at all. It could decide it has authority in some circumstances and not others. It could determine that it has the authority to determine whehter these circumstances give it jurisdiction - or it could determine that the lower court needs to review that question first - or that the lower court needs to engage in more fact-finding.

And all of that has to be evaluated before eve reaching the main question - which has at least as many - if not more - permutations.

[Silent3]

22. No matter what a diplomat does, they don't have the position or authority to cause as much harm...

...as a out-of-control, unaccountable President. And a diplomat can most definitely be ejected from the county at any time, forcibly if necessary.

TOTALLY different situation.

As one of Trump's lawyer's was forced to admit, he was literally proposing the type of immunity which would allow a President to assassinate political rivals, with the historically-proven-to-be-weak, not to mention slow and cumbersome, process of impeachment as the only safeguard against abuse of power.

A President could first arrest and/or assassinate anyone in Congress who would dare support impeachment, kill off judges who stood in his way... boom, dictatorship.

A mere rogue diplomat would not be that kind of threat.

[Ms. Toad]

31. Impeachment is a much swifter process than the courts,

In case you haven't noticed.

But the issue isn't whehter it is a good idea - it is determining what the constitution permits/requires. And, contrary to your belief, that is not necessarily a simple question or a foregone conclusion.

[Silent3]

32. The Constitution does not, and cannot permit...

...an unaccountable President free to recklessly commit crimes, crimes to such an extent that he could kill off domestic political opposition and get away with it.

Any judge who doesn't think so should resign.

Further, impeachment isn't at all swift when compared to the speed an unaccountable President could dismantle democracy.

[onenote]

34. Thank you. I've been trying to explain this in my posts as well.

Trump's appeal makes two principal arguments: that he is immune from criminal prosecution and that prosecution is barred by double jeopardy. Within those two principal arguments are a number of arguments supporting those positions. Trump cited dozens of cases, statutes, and constitutional provisions in support of his position. Smith, appropriately, treated each of those arguments seriously and countered with a detailed, well-researched opposition brief. The DC Circuit, if it wants to avoid a decision that would be reversed by the Supreme Court, has to throughly and thoughtfully consider and address every one of the arguments.

Anyone who claims this is a "simple" case hasn't read the pleadings and apparently thinks they're smarter than Jack Smith.

[Ms. Toad]

35. A few of us have been trying to explain it.

Mostly getting countered with emotional arguments, rather than legal ones.

While I wasn't impressed with Trump's brief (I think I described it as a poor first year law student effort), the attorney who argued on his behalf did a good job - so that is a better source for anyone interested in the meat of the issues (from Trump's perspective). All of the focus is on the "Even Trump's attorney admitted Biden could send the seals to assassinate him and we couldn't prosecute him." Duh. that is the logical outermost conclusion. But there are dozens of less far-fetched scenarios, and nuances between nothing and complete immunity.

I still don't think Trump will win, but I would only be mildly surprised to have it sent back to the lower court for any one of a number of reasons.

[onenote]

36. agreed

[Silent3]

37. Turns out the gist of the court decision on immunity is just what I said it should be

The breakdown of checks and balances that would create an unaccountable Presidency.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754.

And gosh, this wouldn't apply to diplomats at all.

[madamesilverspurs]

23. We are a nation of laws.

But we are not a nation of lawyers. Frustration with the shifting landscape of accountability is becoming maddeningly routine. Our present and growing anxiety seems to be directly traceable to some rather stunning incidents of in-your-face decisions handed down by the highest court; concurrent with all that is the alarming judicial departures from norms of conduct and ethics. How are we to trust or respect those who are positioned to shrug off our concerns?

Yes, we have questions. And we are right to ask them. Trust in our institutions of justice has been relegated to the realm of unreasonable expectation. That richly columned building is morphing into a big top, and the remodel is coming from the inside. If the occupants want our trust and respect, they're going to have to earn it. Meanwhile, our rising doubts are justified. More's the pity.


.

[WarGamer]

24. Trump won't get the immunity ruling he's looking for... he wants the DELAY

He wins in November and all charges are dropped and Jack Smith is hiring defense lawyers for his own investigation.

Count on it.

[Silent3]

25. Oh, I don't expect Trump will get his immunity ruling. I don't even think this SCOTUS is quite that shameless...

...but that's all the more reason to expect speed in denying Trump immunity, and to not play along with his delay game.

[OAITW r.2.0]

26. Well said.

[gab13by13]

28. The delay has nothing to do with giving presidents the right to murder people

The delay is about how the stay is handled.

Debating over nonsense is illogical.

Judge Henderson has protected the presidency in her other decisions.

If the court delays too much longer even the stay will be moot.

Time Matters.

[Silent3]

29. That's my point

There is no realistically possible option apart from denying Trump this immunity he seeks. Which makes the continuing delay all the more suspect.

[Pluvious]

33. From Heather Cox Richardson's "Letters from an American" today...

From the end of today's entry:

Two years later, when it became clear that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment for protecting a man’s right to have a say in his government had fallen short, the nation amended the Constitution a fifteenth time. The Fifteenth Amendment established that the right of citizens to vote could not be denied or restricted either by the United States or by any state “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Congressmen believed that so long as people could vote, they could elect lawmakers who would protect their interests.

Once again, the amendment gave Congress the “power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

It seems clear that the men who wrote the Reconstruction Amendments expected men like former president Trump to be disqualified from the presidency under the Fourteenth Amendment, as 25 distinguished historians of Reconstruction outlined in their recent brief supporting Trump’s removal from the Colorado ballot.

But the Fourteenth Amendment did far more than ban insurrectionists from office. Together with the other Reconstruction Amendments, it established the power of the federal government to defend civil rights, voting, and government finances from a minority that had entrenched itself in power in the states and from that power base tried to impose its ideology on the nation.

https://open.substack.com/pub/heathercoxrichardson/p/february-4-2024?

[Silent3]

38. I just wanted to crow a little...

...because even if it took the court a bit of time to get there, this gist of their decision is pretty much what I said it should be (albeit without reference to dictatorship), that Trump's desired immunity would lead to an unacceptably unaccountable Presidency, beyond the reach of checks and balances.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.” See Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. at 754.