John Roberts demands swift response from Jack Smith to Trump's immunity claim

[Goodheart]

Roberts has given special counsel Jack Smith a week to file a motion explaining why former President Donald Trump should not have presidential immunity for election subversion crimes.

This is a bullshit flaw in the system. WHY ON EARTH should Jack Smith have to do any further explaining when it's already been explained in court, then in an appeals court?

READ THE COURT TRANSCRIPTS AND DECISIONS, you hopeless hack. The immunity claim is so absurd that the only notice you should be sending out on the matter is that the Supreme Court will not stay or review the case because the Court does not exist to countenance nonsense.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-john-roberts-demands-swift-response-from-jack-smith-to-trump-s-immunity-claim/ar-BB1idKpH?ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=9c0b4a6d48ca438a83c1f45b1fbcebb8&ei=28

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. It's not bullshit, it's standard procedure

SCOTUS looks at appeals with “new” eyes and ears.

Why shouldn’t Smith have the opportunity to provide additional influence to those eyes and ears beyond what has already been argued in lower courts?

[CincyDem]

3. ...and allow Smith to frame his response in light of Trump's appeal.

[Goodheart]

10. "Standard procedure" is bullshit.

[Ocelot II]

14. It's not bullshit. It's the way the process works.

If you don't believe me feel free to read the rules of the Supreme Court. https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. It doesn't bother me. Nt

[Ocelot II]

27. Nor me. What's bullshit is a lot of bad and inaccurate reporting

that suggests this case is being handled in an unusual way that favors TFG. It isn't and it doesn't.

[Fiendish Thingy]

36. The only remotely unusual thing in his appeal is request for stay for en banc hearing

Trump wants to be able to delay as much as possible, including not skipping the en banc step, however, the lower court only allowed their stay to remain in force if Trump went directly to SCOTUS.

Trump wants SCOTUS to reverse that, which would, at most, get him another 4-6 weeks, tops.

Otherwise, everything is unfolding according to standard procedure.

Nothing to panic about, nor spurt in unfocused, blind outrage.

If anything, we should be stocking up on popcorn, and resting our voices so that we can cheer loudly when the next round of Trump’s losing inevitably happens.

[Ocelot II]

39. Of course the motivation is always delay,

and seeking an extension of the stay so there can be an en banc review is only for that purpose, but it's all being handled according to normal procedures. Roberts didn't demand anything; he merely signed an order regarding the deadline for any reply memorandum Smith wanted to submit. Damn, I really get tired of all the hysteria over routine processes. Roberts is not a very good Chief Justice for a lot of reasons, but here he just did a normal thing in the normal course of business - which is not understood or adequately investigated by reporters or their audience - and everybody gets their knickers in a knot.

[Ocelot II]

13. Wouldn't it be nice if reporters and media commentators knew something about the legal process

so readers wouldn't have hissy fits over what are normal court procedures and then make inaccurate and sometimes ridiculous assumptions about what they mean? Describing the standard filing of a reply memorandum as some kind of a demand suggests that Roberts is placing some unfair burden on Smith, when it's nothing more than the normal process. I'm sure Smith wants to file a reply memorandum, not that he's been unfairly tasked with submitting one.

[yagotme]

32. Yes, that would be nice.

Unfortunately, it also takes work. I feel our current crop of "journalists" are getting very lazy, so I don't expect to see a lot of improvement.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

33. Some do, but the OP insists upon citing a clickbait source.

I don't mean MSN; I mean Raw Story. It's on a par with the Daily Mail, which for reasons that elude me is another of DU's sacred cows.

If I wanted to read bombast and sensationalism, I spend my time at Free Republic.

And good afternoon.

[Ocelot II]

40. I dislike Raw Story for the reasons you cite.

It's basically a leftish version of the Drudge Report.

[getagrip_already]

2. Relax! Its not a demand, its part of the system

When a motion is made, the opposing side gets the opportunity to file a reply to that motion.

That is customary. It is not a demand.

Jack Smith will likely have his response filed by Thursday (just my guess).

It's nothing to be upset about.

[JohnSJ]

4. I suspect Jack Smith had his response ready before it was appealed to the SC. That b,eing said

The court of appeals ruling was so complete, that the SC is asking Smith for a ruling may seem to suggest that they will plan to delay this out, rather than as the article suggests speed it up.

I will be surprised if they don't delay this ruling until after the election.

The fastest way for it to proceed is for the SC not to hear this case, and since they are asking Smith for a response, it appears that isn't going to happen.

[getagrip_already]

6. Most of it, but he couldnt know all the bs .....

The bit about the stay so they can do slow en banc appeal for example before fileing for cert will take some work.

And they will have to pull out other sections to address directly as well.

But yeah, I'm sure they had a response gamed out well ahead of time.

As for them taking or refusing it, they need to take a vote, and they need smith's response before voting.

I don't think it tells us anything.

[JohnSJ]

15. I am just not optimistic with this Supreme Court, and after what happened with Dobbs, and what

seemed to me their hesitation in releasing the decision, and the only reason they did IMHO was because they had a "whistle blower" report the decision before they wanted it officially released.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Clearly, they will *never* rule that Trump has immunity

And I think even the possibility that they will draw out the process to delay his trial is slim.

They acted quickly on the Executive Privilege case, which expedited Garland’s grand jury investigations, which expedited the indictments Smith obtained.

[JohnSJ]

21. I agree they won't rule that he has immunity, but I am not sure if the ruling will be delayed until

after the election or not.

[onenote]

23. Trump hasn't filed his appeal yet. He's only asked for a stay of the Court of Appeals decision

while he prepares his petition for certiorari -- basically what the Court of Appeals invited him to do.

The Court could still deny the request for a stay. Or they could deny certiorari if and when Trump files it.

But I believe that the Court will grant the stay, grant certiorari, set an expedited schedule and then affirm the District Court. It is not that unusual for the Court to affirm, sometimes by a unanimous vote, a case that they've decided to hear. And its likely that Smith anticipates that they'll give the stay and ultimately grant cert. After all, he previously told the Court that "This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy" and "only this Court can definitively resolve" Trump's immunity claims.

[JohnSJ]

29. I agree on the outcome, I just don't think they will rush the review, and most likely the events involving his

his involvement in January 6 won't be ruled on before the election.

I hope I am wrong

[lark]

5. Roberts is nothing but a right wing lackey, pretending -sometimes - to be independent in thought.

That they are doing anything at all with this case shows their right wing, and "I am God" (of the rich), syndromes. They will do anything and everything to ensure tsf's win, except show their hands.

[Alpeduez21]

7. I demand a rapid response from the SC

you useless partisan hack!

[Ocelot II]

8. This is standard procedure - nothing to get worked up about.

A party files a request for some action by the court; the other side gets to respond. That's the way the process works, for all cases and all litigants. One week is also entirely normal for a reply memorandum. I'm sure Smith wants to respond, and probably is all ready to do so, even before the deadline. Anyhow, this relates just to the motion for a stay pending filing of a cert petition. Nothing substantive will be decided at this point. It sure would be nice if media outlets understood this process and reported on it accurately so readers wouldn't get their panties in a knot.

[edhopper]

9. This is my optimistic take

The SC wants to get rid of this inane request as soon as possible. So they give Smith a week to file and then can deny Trump in rapid fashion.

[Happy Hoosier]

11. Weird take....

A response from Smith is comletely standard. The fact that this was issued quickly, and with a short timeline indicates to me that the court MAY act quickly. It's an opportunity for Smith to align his arguments with that of the appeals court and strengthen his case. This is NOT a bad thing.

[Scrivener7]

12. He demands this because why? Does he think Smith is going to sit on his thumbs?

What an asshole.

And if, as it seems, the "demands" language is coming from Raw Story and not from Roberts, what the fuck, Raw Story? Where's that language when the sick fuck delays and delays and delays.

AND if that is the case, Roberts is still an asshole.

[Ocelot II]

16. There was no "demand." This was just bad reporting.

A reply brief is normal procedure, and a week is a normal deadline where a case is being fast-tracked.

[Scrivener7]

20. As I said, that's what it seems.

[Goodheart]

22. That's my point... such "normal procedure" should not exist.

The case is ludicrous. The Supreme Court should not be demanding anybody to respond to nonsense.

[Ocelot II]

24. Roberts didn't "demand" anything. That was bad reporting.

Filing a reply brief is SOP under SCOTUS' rules. I'm sure Smith wants to file a reply brief and will do so before if not by the deadline.

[onenote]

25. For the umpteenth time, there is no "demand". There is a deadline. Smith can file before the deadline. He can choose not

to file.

But he won't choose to file because whether or not the stay is granted, Trump still can and will file his petition for certiorari, and Smith will respond to that. But as I've noted, Smith won't claim the petition is frivolous or that the case is ludicrous. He recognizes that, in his words, "This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy" and "only this Court can definitively resolve" Trump's immunity claims. The Court of Appeals certainly didn't treat it as frivolous -- the acknowledged it is a case of first impression and they addressed with total seriousness each of Trump's arguments.

[Fiendish Thingy]

38. Raw Story is a clickbait rag

They recycle others’ reporting by using paraphrasing to avoid copyright lawsuits, and then plaster emotion-triggering ALL CAPS!!! Headlines to generate clicks and revenue.

Just because they take an anti-Trump stance doesn’t mean they aren’t journalistic trash.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

41. Thank you. NT

[Baitball Blogger]

19. Robert's legacy is shit, and I hope that all these misdeeds are rehashed at his

memorial service the day he dies, so we don't spend a second of our day sorting through the lies.

[onenote]

26. How is setting a deadline -- shorter than required -- for Smith to respond a "misdeed"?

Roberts has made a number of questionable decisions. Not sure how this is one.

[euphorb]

28. The Raw Story article gets it wrong.

Roberts did NOT ask Jack Smith to respond to the immunity question. Trump hasn't even appealed that to the Supreme Court yet. All that Trump has done is ask the Supreme Court for a stay of the trial court proceedings while he appeals the immunity issue to the Supreme Court (but first to ask for an en banc hearing at the appellate court, a transparent ploy for delay). What Jack Smith has to file by next Tuesday is a response to the request for a stay--in other words, reasons why a stay should not be granted.

Secondly, what Jack Smith will file is NOT a motion--it is a RESPONSE BRIEF. A motion is a request to a court to do something. The fact that the author of the Raw Story article gets so much wrong in the very first sentence indicates that he does not know what he is talking about.

[onenote]

35. Standard operating procedure for RawStory, which really should be called WrongStory

[Emile]

30. It's not bullshit, it's a delay tactic. Republicans are weak on crime

and always have been.

[onenote]

34. How is it a delay tactic to give Smith a week to respond when Smith can respond sooner if he wants?

The amount of time provided for Smith to respond to Trump's motion -- a motion the DC Circuit essentially invited Trump to file -- actually is less than usually is provided in response to emergency motions. Indeed, Roberts set the deadline the day after Trump filed, while in many instances, the order setting the deadline for a response to an emergency motion isn't set until several days have passed from the motion being filed -- effectively drawing out the process even longer.

Weird way to engage in a "delay" tactic.

[RKP5637]

31. I bet Jack Smith is already prepared to do this. It seems it's SOP.

[H2O Man]

37. Not at all.

As others have accurately noted, this is the way the process routinely unfolds. In fact, Mr. Smith is being given a couple more days than usual. However, he can file the response before the deadline. And indeed, he will, knowing the USSC has a day set aside at the end of the week.

Mr. Smith is not being "forced" to submit a response. If he wanted to go by what has already been submitted, he certainly could. But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

The court system is not a mystery, if one seeks to understand it. When people undestand it, they can engage in meaningful conversations about both past and current events.

[Ocelot II]

42. Making the effort to understand an unfamiliar system is work.

It's easier to rely on reports of others, many of whom also don't understand the system and report on it inaccurately and for maximum controversy and clickbait (Raw Story is one of the worst). The result is uninformed, unnecessary and misplaced ranting and hysteria, as this thread amply demonstrates.

[H2O Man]

44. I agree 100%

with everything you said here. There are way more things that I know absolutely nothing about, so I don't take a bold stance on them, much less express utter outrage. If it is a topic that seems important and of interest to me -- as I'd hope the judical system would be to everyone here -- I'd study it before opening my mouth.

[GreenWave]

43. They saw insurrection right in their own back yard and pooped on Colorado.

They saw Trump get his ass handed to him by the circuit court on this ludicrous contention.
Solution send back and refuse to handle it.
Robert who was key lawyer in W against Gore wants to delay.