The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to immediately decide Trump's claim that he cannot be prosecuted for trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat, allowing a lower court to continue reviewing the issue.
The justices, rebuffing an extraordinary request by U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, refused to effectively leap-frog a lower appeals court to speed up a final ruling on Trump's claim of criminal immunity ahead of his trial, due to begin in March.
The court issued its decision without explanation in a brief one-page order. No justice publicly dissented. The justices could still decide to consider the issue later.
A federal appeals court in Washington has fast-tracked its consideration of the issue, and scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 9.
In a statement to supporters, Trump labeled the Supreme Court decision as a victory but added "I will still have to fight for my rights in the Appeals Court."
Trump has argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that former presidents cannot face criminal charges for conduct related to their official responsibilities.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected that claim on Dec. 1, prompting Trump's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Trump's appeal suspended his trial, currently set for March.
In a bid to avoid delaying Trump's trial, Smith on Dec. 11 urged the Supreme Court to undertake an expedited ruling - even as the D.C. Circuit court races to rule on the issue.
If Trump is reelected to the White House on Nov. 5, he could seek to pardon himself of any federal crimes.
Trump's lawyers opposed Smith's request, telling the justices in a court filing the special counsel's bid to bypass the normal appellate process amounted to a "rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon."
Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, who cemented a 6-3 conservative majority.
https://news.yahoo.com/us-supreme-court-wont-rule-193156897.html
theoneking crownsitsself
Americans have the right to know if a sitting president can break the law without consequences. And we have the right to know before we vote. The Supreme Court will rule sitting presidents are not above the law - which is why the tRump does NOT want this case before the court. He wants to delay it until after the election, with the hope he wins so he can pardon himself or throw the case out altogether - which would put him above the law. If the SC rules sitting presidents cannot be held accountable when breaking the law, it would allow Biden to incite an insurrection, assemble fake electors, threaten election officials, and stay in office if he were to lose.
Anonymous
>>1249394 There still is a impeachment process for official acts............. you'll still have all the same protections you've always had.However if the SC decides official acts can be criminalized you'll be ruining democracy they wont be able to make controversial decisions.
So no prosecution of Trump
Anonymous
>>1249401 Impeachment is a purely political process. As long as the person being impeached's opposition party doesn't have a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate, they'll never be convicted, because most Senators will just vote the party line and two-thirds is an absurdly high threshold to reach.
Anonymous
>>1249406 >two-thirds is an absurdly high threshold to reach. Presumably because it's removing an elected official is an absurd act and should require political consensus and not just 51%.
Anonymous
>>1249410 >removing an elected official is an absurd act What's absurd about it if they violate their constitutional oath?
>should require political consensus But there will never be political consensus because government is too partisan for anyone to vote on principle rather than toeing the party line. That was the point I was making. The only way there will ever be 67 votes for conviction is if the opposition party holds at least 67 seats in the Senate, and you are smoking crack if you think a president's own party can get a supermajority like that, let alone the opposition party.
Anonymous
>>1249415 There are plenty of people in the GOP who hate Trump. If Trump had pardoned the Jan6th mostly peaceful protestors, there's a decent chance he would have been removed after impeachment.
Anonymous
>>1249394 >The Supreme Court will rule sitting presidents are not above the law That's not the message their sending with this ruling.
They're saying Trump is above the law by refusing to rule on it.
Funnily enough, it also means Biden is above the law and he can start arresting all the Republicans who took part in Trump's failed coup, since he doesn't need to follow due process because of this ruling.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249420 Biden is getting bribes through Rosemont Seneca. Biden is above the law, so long as he does what neocons want by bombing brown people in the middle east.
Anonymous
>>1249418 McConnell himself acknowledged Trump was responsible for inciting an insurrection on January 6, yet still voted to acquit. That's all the proof you need that it is purely a political process.
Anonymous
>>1249415 >But there will never be political consensus because government is too partisan for anyone to vote on principle rather than toeing the party line. That wasn't true for Nixon. The problem is Democrats wouldn't remove Clinton or anyone else in their own party for anything.
Anonymous
>>1249423 You missed it. Flew right over your head. Read my post a few more times you might get it. If you can't figure it out maybe this website isn't for you.
Anonymous
>>1249424 >That wasn't true for Nixon. 50 years ago, politicians still had a shred of integrity. Enough to threaten Nixon with conviction, had he not resigned. If Watergate happened today, Nixon wouldn't have even needed to resign because he knew he'd get acquitted.
>Democrats wouldn't remove Clinton I would ranking "lying about an extramarital affair" far below "spying on your political enemies", "bribing a foreign world leader to sabotage your political enemies' campaigns", and "engaging in an insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power" in terms of things worthy of impeachment conviction. In fact, I wouldn't consider "lying about an extramarital affair" to be worthy of conviction at all.
>>1249425 What do you stand to gain by being vague and indirect?
Anonymous
>>1249420 Your tears are exquisite.
Cry more, libtard, but save some for SCOTUS ruling 9-0 in Trump’s favor and overturn CO’s laughable decision
Anonymous
>>1249430 >I would ranking "lying about an extramarital affair" Well that's why Democrats are shitbags not willing to enforce the rules against their own; while Nixon was forced to resign you clowns will still make endless excuses for why you aren't going to enforce conduct against Clinton and sit here and pretend like the only thing he did wrong was get his cock sucked in the office by somebody that wasn't his horrendous wife.
Anonymous
>>1249433 Actually Hilldawg was pretty milfy back then.
I have nothing more to add.
Anonymous
>>1249431 >Cry more, libtard, but save some for SCOTUS ruling 9-0 in Trump’s favor and overturn CO’s laughable decision good
Then Biden can confiscate all the rifles and declare Marshall law and have tRump arrested
Anonymous
>>1249439 Fair. I'm sure she was always a raging lesbian bitch though.
Anonymous
>>1249440 >Then Biden can confiscate all the rifles and declare Marshall law Yeah. Now this is a winning plan. Did you come up with it yourself?
Anonymous
>>1249440 It's "martial law", not "marshall law"
Anonymous
>>1249441 Oh yeah definitely. She also ran several real estate scams with Bill, which was the origin of the investigation that turned into "only a blowjob".
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249443 >>1249442 It's better than Trump trying to declare martian law
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249445 Or how about giving AIDS to hemophiliacs through contracts with the Arkansas prisons while Clinton was governor? Whoops, I guess nobody remembers that one.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249443 Correcting Elgin AFB anons posting auto-correct trash from multiple phones is pointless.
Anonymous
>>1249440 Bidet won’t do shit besides mumble incoherently after falling and shitting on himself.
Anonymous
>>1249453 you say that but last i checked it was biden that brought peace and civility back to america. cope trumptard
Martian lawer knows Marshall law
>>1249420 >That's not the message their sending with this ruling. >They're saying Trump is above the law by refusing to rule on it. This is why.
Biden believes too much in democracy to take advantage of a Scotus ruling making the Potus invulnerable, but He just do something if He thinks tRump might get elected, like saying the election was stolen....LOL
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249462 >Biden believes too much in democracy Mmmm hmmm *sensible chuckle* mmh quite
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249433 It's not Slick Willy's fault that retard republicans didn't count blowjobs as sexual relations. You idiots are just mad that you got out lawyered.
Anonymous
>>1249456 Go get another booster femboy. Your wife's boyfriend doesn't want to catch the sniffles.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249602 God forbid he does something 95% of the rest of the country did
Anonymous
>>1249391 I think anyone with a brain can agree that presidents shouldn't be above the law.
We were trying to avoid absolute monarchs people
Anonymous
>>1249621 Leftists only apply this to republican presidents, of course.
Anonymous
>>1249456 >peace and civility Can you be any more out of touch?
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1249625 yeah cause 4 years of rioting and hate crimes under trump was so much better
Anonymous
>>1249636 >Democrats destroying their own neighborhoods and cities It's literally just what they do.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249637 felons can't vote
Anonymous
>>1249636 >4 years of rioting and hate crimes under trump was so much better It was actually only 1 summer of 1 year but you people are in denial over the fact that it was BLM and leftists doing the rioting and hate crimes
Anonymous
>>1249644 but chauvin dindu nuffin right
Anonymous
>>1249645 >a violent woman-beater druggie getting killed by cops means we can riot and commit hate crimes Chimp behavior
Anonymous
>>1249648 >extrajudicial murder is ok hmm, i wonder why you're unpopular
Anonymous
>>1249650 >rioting and hate crimes and extrajudicial murder are only bad when we're not the ones doing it Typical leftoid
Anonymous
>>1249654 you just got upset over chauvin being punished for his crimes though. you're describing yourself. i have no problem when arsonists go to jail.
Anonymous
>>1249657 >you just got upset over chauvin being punished for his crimes though And you're getting upset over Floyd getting punished for his
BTW, how is BLM and leftists rioting and commiting hate crimes punishing chauvin for his crimes?
Anonymous
>>1249665 >And you're getting upset over Floyd getting punished for his because the police don't have the right to execute people in the street. the fact that you don't understand this is unsurprising though, you're an authoritarian faggot
Anonymous
>>1249666 >because the police don't have the right to execute people in the street. Actually yes they do, because leftists need them to enforce the welfare state
Also you're not answering:
>BTW, how is BLM and leftists rioting and commiting hate crimes punishing chauvin for his crimes? Anonymous
>>1249668 >i love when police kill people in the streets i rest my case. have fun being a mad loser, i have some christmas shopping to do
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249671 >>i love when police kill people in the streets Again, how else are you going to enforce your utopian welfare state?
>i have some christmas shopping to do Buying dilators, soylent and SSRI's isn't Christmas shopping leftoid
Anonymous
>>1249420 The case is currently in a lower appellate court, and SCOTUS doesn't want to touch it before the case makes its way through the lower courts -- because that's how our legal system works. Jack Smith's argument was that it's axiomatic that the case will be going to SCOTUS in the future, regardless, so just avoid lower court rulings and fast track it to SCOTUS. That's generally not how our legal system works. I can't simply demand my case be heard by SCOTUS now because I believe it will end up there in the future, bypassing lower courts.
Anonymous
>>1249624 So, you think Biden should also have presidential immunity? If he (or any subsequent Democratic president) did what Trump is alleged to have done, he shouldn't be punished for it?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249665 >And you're getting upset over Floyd getting punished for his Floyd already served time for whatever crimes he was convicted of. Which is why he was no longer imprisoned. He didn't commit a capital offense when he was killed, and even if he did, he was deprived his day in court by being killed by the police. Chauvin pled guilty to depriving Floyd of his civil rights.
Anonymous
>>1249704 Democrats have already assured that they won't be appearing on ballots in red states.
Anonymous
>>1249680 This entire post is wrong.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari_before_judgment SCOTUS has seen more cases bypass the circuit court since 2019 (19) than in the previous 30 years combined (3).
Anonymous
>>1249707 >"Certiorari before judgment is rarely granted" Oh man you mean libshits are kneejerking over nothing again???
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249709 NTA but nothing has changed about Trump's eventual conviction except the trial date. What advantage do you think your cheerleading is giving him?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249709 >rarely granted >has happened at a 6x rate over the past 5 years vs the previous three decades Also, the very next sentence in the article you conveniently left out of your greentext excerpt:
>Supreme Court Rule 11 states that this procedure will be followed "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court." Isn't a constitutional question regarding a president's immunity to criminal charges of "imperative public importance" if the said ex-president is currently facing 91 criminal charges across both federal and state jurisdiction?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Why are libshits so easy to rile up with literal routine events?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Why are right-wingers physically incapable of arguing in good faith?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249706 But we're talking about immunity from criminal charges, not disqualification from running for office due to insurrection.
Also, even if we were talking about the latter, which Democrats engaged in insurrection? And how would Democrats that never previously served in government in any capacity be banned from ballots if the insurrection clause in the 14th amendment only bans those who have previously taken a constitutional oath?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I didn't know former presidents being prosecuted with routine
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Oh dear the libshits are kneejerking over nothing again
Anonymous
Quoted By:
As a liberal, I normally don't get too bothered when a judge makes a status quo judgement for a completely routine decision. But man, when trumps involved I get really fired up about it. Especially because he fired the judge that would have ruled differently and replaced him with a crony
Anonymous
Quoted By:
As a falseflagger, I really like to make up strawmen, and pretend to be my opponents so I completely misrepresent their arguments.
Anonymous
>King Trump Yep that would be based. I would support it to own the libs.
Anonymous
>>1249757 At the very least, it would be the end of the retarded "we're a republic, not a democracy" talking point.
Anonymous
>>1249391 >former presidents cannot face criminal charges for conduct related to their official responsibilities. This is a very critical immunity of employees. Even employees of private companies get immunity for civil damages as long as the employee was acting within the law and the scope of their job. You can't sue a truck driver, you must sue the trucking company. The private individual loses protection if they were acting criminally such as drunk driving.
The President has a functional scope of basically all of America and this office has a direct interest in the quality of government including elections. The 2020 elections were highly unusual and counting ballots for five days after the polls closed is abnormal behavior.
Regarding the certification of electors/poll results the certifier is making a judgement that the election was conducted to standard and had a specific result. If the election does not meet the required standard the election should not be certified. The government and legislature then need to decide an appropriate remedy. The courts in 2000 made rulings on Florida's election in Broward county, forcing recounts, rules for errors and hanging chads and everything else. In 2020 the courts decided they had no power to examine challenged polling stations and dismissed the cases. Texas sued Pennsylvania that Pennsylvania did not meet the national election standard and SCOTUS declined the case (a case only SCOTUS was allowed to hear).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249759 The direct election of senators shifts the US much closer to a democracy and in analysis was a bad choice.
Anonymous
>>1249818 you don't even believe what you're saying
Anonymous
>>1249823 I strongly believe the 2020 election is illegitimate. The reason is that the mass mailing of ballots and lack of custody of such ballots which were then counted several days after election day. Multiple election laws and rules were changed only for 2020, some rule changes were done by court litigation and some by officials who were later ruled not authorized to make such changes. It was an absolute clusterfuck of easy fraud before you even consider specific events that happened in Georgia and Arizona.
The 2020 election is illegitimate because it was conducted improperly. They changed the rules without proper authority and then didn't even follow those new rules.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249837 >I strongly believe the 2020 election is illegitimate How does it feel being a massive retard?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249818 Guys, I take back everything I've ever said about voter fraud cultists. THIS is the best Trump cope I've ever read. It has a creative spice to it that I just can't describe. Congrats on the mental gymnastics, anon. You're a gold medalist, for sure.
Anonymous
>>1249837 Good post and well articulated.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249857 It's too late for your astroturf
i make a claim:my left nut is the planet earth
i make a claim:my left nut is the planet earth Sun 24 Dec 2023 03:04:58 No. 1249866 Report >>1249837 >Multiple election laws and rules were changed only for 2020, some rule changes were done by court litigation and some by officials who were later ruled not authorized to make such changes Citations?
>>1249857 >Good post and well articulated. Proving nothing
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>1249837 >I strongly believe the 2020 election is illegitimate. This is illegal language, unironically.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249876 This article is satire and only a dunce would take it at face value.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249680 >Republican supreme court picking and choosing >Again. Any defenses you can levy got destroyed with Bush v Gore when the Republicans on the court installed Bush.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249880 This kind of tinfoilfaggotry is one of the main reasons why no one listens to you people.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249680 >because that's how our legal system works Usually, but not always.
>I can't simply demand my case be heard by SCOTUS now because I believe it will end up there in the future, bypassing lower courts. You can actually. They don't have to give in to your demand, but there's a process for that. What did you think Jack Smith was doing?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249837 >The 2020 election is illegitimate because it was conducted improperly It's interesting you argue about the minutia rather than directly focusing on claiming biden didn't get more votes than trump(and enough to win).
The trump team expended every legal recourse and then some.
It was the trumptards that held up one court case, recount, audit after another up, claiming that THIS time they would obviously release the kraken storm and show all the super blatant fraud only to cope "w-well Rudy knew that trump appointed Republican judge was corrupt and is waiting for the right time to release the evidence!".
You were lied to when Rudy said in a dildo shop parking lot that a famous dead boxer had voted.
You were lied to about the bamboo ballots, the secret watermarks, the kraken, the pillow synposium. It was all bs that by the time someone disproved you were already a dozen lies ahead and might not even see the correction in your media bubble. You can maybe admit "ok well maybe THAT one was fake" on some points but there's not enough time to go lie by lie through it all and you're left with this vague feeling that there must be SOMETHING there.
Like that anon said I don't think you really believe the election was stolen by a bunch of stolen mail-in ballots that weren't actually representative of voters. That's why you have to appeal to all this other technical shit about rule changes and "proper authority" and shit.
It's why there's the cope "but our rallies are so big!" , "but I saw so many trump flags and no biden ones!"
My wife and I have never attended a political rally. We don't have any political signs flags or stickers on our car or house/lawn.
We voted by mail, for biden, like all our family and friends.
Your cope would insist that actually our votes were stolen illegitimate fraudulent votes.
More people like me wanted NOT trump than those who wanted more of him, it's that simple.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>1249866 To be fair there were a lot of rule changes and expansion of mail-in voting because it was a very unusual year with the whole pandemic thing.
Many are good changes imo though republicans are obviously trying to reverse much of it for the same reasons they try to remove voting on sundays when black churches traditionally organize "get out the vote" events or remove polling places in Democratic leaning areas and areas with public transportation access and ban giving water to people waiting in lines.
Because when people are actually able to vote, the gop tends not to do as well.
>>1249880 Totally, all of /pol/ is literally in jail rn.