Believe me, I know the feeling and impulse. When I first heard the news at about 12:30m PDT that the Supreme Court had declined to allow Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for an expedited hearing on Trump’s claim of absolute immunity.

I know, I know. My own first response on hearing the news was, Those sons of bitches just gave that fat pr*ck a free pass on the DC case until after the election! Bu the more that I took the effort to pull my knee jerk reaction back, listened to the information coming in, looked at the bigger picture, as you’re entitled for me to do, my chill pill kicked in, and I started breathing normally again. And that was when I realized that the Supreme Court had done the only thing it could do.

Look, Jack Smith’s filing that motion was a pre-emptive strike against Trump’s delay tactics. Trump tried filing his motion in front of the unflappable Judge Tanya Chutkun to dismiss the charges against Traitor tot since his being President offered him absolute immunity to prosecution. Judge Chutkan unceremoniously blew The Mango Mjessiah off, but put enough pages of judicial due diligence into her ruling to make it pretty much bulletproof in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But here’s where the wicket gets sticky. After Chutkan files her decision, El Pendejo President has something like 30-45 days to file his appeak with the appellate court. Once hs does that, Smith has something like 14 days to file his response, Trump gets 10 days to file a rebuttal, and Smith has 5 days to file his final word. The court will then schedule a date for oral arguments. Meanwhile, tempus is fugiting on the March 4th scheduled trial date.

And so Smith pulled an end run. First he filed a motion with the 4th Circuirt Court of Appeals for an expedited hearing, and then turned around and filed a motion to take up the case immediately, bypassing the slower appellate court, and ruling on the matter directly, most riki-tik.

But here’s the spanner in the works. The appellate court agreed to Smith’s request for an expedited hearing and judgement. Which must have pissed off Trump’s lawyers mondo. The court gave them until the middle of next week to file their briefs, and have scheduled January 9th for oral arguments. The court can rule any time after that.

And just to show you how quickly a motivated appellate circuit court can rule, just think of this. Last Friday Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows’s lawyers went in front of the 11th Circuit Appellate Court to argue his case that he should be tried in federal court rather than Georgia state court. That was on Friday. This Tuesday would be the first scheduled business day for the court of the week. Which means that the judges involved spent Monday working on their ruling, because by 1:30 EST on Tuesday, they advised Meadows that he was sh*t outta runway, and get ready for trial in Georgia.

This is why I side with the Supreme Court, and perfectly understand their logic. This case is without one of the most critical, existential court hearings in the history of the republic. Think about it. We have never had a former President of the United States going to trial for criminal acts committed while he was the President of the United States! This is the Holy Grail of American jurisprudence, even bringing into play a possible conflict between the executive and judicial branches of the United States government, branches purposely separated by the Constitution.

Here’s Scenario #1. The Supreme Court agrees to take up Jack Smith’s motion to expedite the case, and agrees to hear oral arguments before the 4th appellate court chimes in. They have the hearing, and on an expedited bases rule against Trump. The March 4th trial date is now on a smooth glide path with only minimal delays possible.

And Trump and his legal sock puppets immediately assail the Supreme Court as an insidious part of the deep state, for jumping the shark and runing against The Cheeto Prophet before he had the chance to exhaust his rights to due process. The court could probably survive that criticism on the arguments of overwhelming public interest as well as the expediency of time in order to assure a fair trial before the 2024 election.

Here’s scenario 2, the one we actually have. Had the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals followed their normal protocol, accepting written briefs under the usual schedule, and scheduling oral arguments for sometime in late February or early March, then it would make sense for the Supreme Court to step in and take the case immediately.

Instead the appellate court has already agreed to hear the case on an expedited manner, and scheduled January 9th for oral arguments. Their ruling would likely come down within two weeks under the expedited process.

You’re the Supreme Court. You are about to embark on making a cataclysmic decision that could change the core of our democracy as we know it. Is a former President above the law? In making a decision at that level, wouldn’t you to have the steady, researched opinion of every possible court to give you the most research and judicial opinion possible for consideration in your ultimate ruling? After all, it gives you ground cover in whatever your final ruling is that you consulted every source. And that’s what the 4th Circuit Court gave the Supreme Court air cover to do, delay their initial entry into the matter in order to allow for full due process in order to shut the Trump flying monkeys up.

But here’s the funny thing. Even if His Lowness manages to slow things down to a crawl, Trump is still f*cked. Royally. Because let’s just say that things get bogged down in the federal court on the March trial. Judge Chuktan announces that she is now scheduling a revised trial date for June 17th.

Fulton County DA Fani Willis has already advised trial judge McAfee in Atlanta that she’s really only waiting for a viable trial date. She has advised him that she would be ready to proceed to pre-trial hearing and jury selection within 30 days of a suitable trial date opening in the calendar. If Judge Chutkan delays her trial date, Willis is more than ready to hump into the breach and fill that hole. Trump just gets tried in Georgia instead of DC. Either way, his fat ass goes to trial.

I know this is frustrating, I’m frustrated too. But we’re in uncharted territory here, and territory we’re not likely to see again. With that being said, no matter how much I hate and disagree with the ideological makeup of the Roberts court, I cannot damn the Roberts court for taking advantage of every available resource to use in reaching a decision. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled agai9nst Trump’s claims of executive privilege and absolute immunity before. And nothing has changed. The only real question here is where the venue of Trump’s next trial will be.

I thank you for the privilege of your time.

Help keep the site running, consider supporting.

13 COMMENTS

  1. I get what you’re saying. Maybe the criticism they took for dicking around with the gag order appeal embarrassed the DC Court of Appeals. Maybe. Jan. 9 seems like an awful lot of time to have to wait for oral arguments. They SHOULD have scheduled them for a couple of days after the New Year. Every freaking day matters. As for how long they’ll take to issue a ruling who the hell knows? Keep in mind this is the premier appellate court, the one that gives ambitious judges the best shot at a SCOTUS nomination. They think they are sooooo fucking special sometimes. The panel that heard the gag order appeal proved THAT. Also keep in mind that by the time of oral arguments all the briefs have been filed and researched by the judges and their clerks. The lawyers on each side have their final summary they try to read but judges and Justices always start in peppering them with questions. IOW they already know the arguments each side is making and the relevant case law. It’s a chance to knock the lawyers around some to see how much they know about and believe in their own case.

    So it should take even a week to issue a ruling. The judges will know by the time of oral arguments which way they are leaning if they haven’t already decided. It’s always that way even at SCOTUS. Drafts, or at least outlines of drafts with footnotes will already be prepared at that point. Sure, they can debate with each other but again if it takes more than a week it’s just because they want everyone to have to wait on them. A reminder of how fucking important they think they are!

    Here’s the part that frosts me though. If Trump loses he can and certainly will request an En Banc hearing – having the entire appeals court hear the case. They can say no but again, how quickly they’d do so is the question. And given you’re correct about them being gutless assholes they might want to grant Trump’s wish so as “avoid even the appearance of rushing to judgement.” How many weeks will THAT eat up. So that puts us into Feb.

    THEN, let’s say Trump loses again. He’s under no obligation to file his appeal right away. I’ve heard both 45 and 90 days cited as the amount of time he has. However, even without an En Banc hearing from the court of appeals it will probably be late Jan. before the DC appeals panel rules. Even 45 days puts us into mid March before Trump has to file his appeal or lose his chance to do so. And on this he will use up EVERY FUCKING DAY of it. That puts us well into March. If SCOTUS grants cert (they might not – they want no part of this as they’ve made clear today) that means weeks of NEW appellate briefs being filed and oral arguments scheduled. So much for a March, April or even May Trial.

    There IS however one potential fly in the ointment for Trump. Let’s say the DC appeals court denies him and does so quickly by their standards. Let’s be optimistic and say two weeks. What they can ALSO do is issue an order that judge Chutkan can proceed with all the pre-trial stuff currently suspended. I’ve heard some pundits point that out. That means there’s a chance, maybe not a great one but better than a small one the DC trial wouldn’t get pushed too far and could still start in late March or early April.

    So, I’m still major pissed at SCOTUS. I still think the Federalist Society Fuckwads have gone to bat for Team Trump. However, they might just be looking to the Court of Appeals to take them off the hood. An appellate decision as solid as judge Chutkan’s could give them an out. They could, in classic fashion do just what hey did today. Issue a single line ruling saying the motion for a writ of Certiorari is denied. The appellate ruling would stand and IF the pre-trial stuff had been allowed to restart the trial could start if not on schedule then pretty quickly after the planned date.

    16
    0
    • The fact names were NOT attached to this ruling shows cowardice. However, appeals courts and SCOTUS can move this along quickly if they give a cuck. My sense is they actually do. For their own legacies at least. SCOTUS heard arguments AND ruled on Gore VS Bush 2000 in one day. To ultimately give Trump immunity would create a monarchy. That may be the Rubicon even this Court dare not cross.

      14
      • I’m guessing you’re talking about the SCOTUS denial? If I’m not mistaken, it’s not common for the names to be attached to denials since the decision isn’t really a formal ruling. Since it involves the DC Circuit Court, that means the appeal had to be heard by Chief Justice Roberts; it also means that no more than 3 members of the Court agreed to hear the case (the “Rule of Four” allows the minority to have a case heard by the full Court).

      • Strictly speaking, this was NOT a ruling…There was no legal issue at stake here…Smith asked for an expedited review, and the court simply declined to do it…

  2. Could the corporate media please STOP calling this a Trump victory? Yes, it’s another frustrating baller. But this delay won’t deny justice. This will NOT be delayed until after 2024. This will go to trial and issue a verdict with time to spare for the election.

    12
  3. Um, one minor quibble with your argument, Murf, but Judge Chutkan is a judge on the “United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” ANY appeal involving that court goes to either the “United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit” OR the “United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit” (the latter is also the arbiter for issues involving patents and trademarks and workplace issues, etc, from all over the country, not just DC). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ZERO jurisdiction over cases heard in DC. (Yes, geographically DC falls within the Fourth’s geographical area but DC is its own District and Circuit court.)

    And Smith bypassed the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, not the Fourth Circuit, when presenting his request to the Supreme Court.

  4. Re: the Timing discussed in denis’ post, I read this in a comment on Joyce Vance’s substack blog:

    I don’t know the validity or facts of this POV, but he “I’ve heard” or the “I’ve read” notes in posts above and in murf’s own article provides at leasst credible balance…

    CGW
    12 hrs ago

    Between the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc and then for filing a cert petition in SCOTUS, we’re looking at a delay of at least 135 days if Trump loses in the D.C. Circuit, plus whatever time it takes for the court to issue its decision.

    Potentially, however, the time could be shortened by 45 days. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (2022 ed.) deals with en banc hearings. Under the rule, Jack Smith could petition the D.C. Circuit to hold the hearing scheduled for January 9 as an en banc hearing rather than a panel hearing. Rule 35(b). “A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due.” Rule 35(c). As the appellee, Smith, based on the D.C. Circuit’s December 13 order , would have until December 30 to file the petition for an en banc hearing. If the court granted the petition, an initial en banc hearing should eliminate the 45-day period for petitioning for a rehearing en banc following the court’s decision.

    “An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.” Rule 35(a). This case ought to fit the requirement of subsection (2).

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

The maximum upload file size: 128 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop files here