FTA:

“The court denied without comment special counsel Jack Smith’s request asking the justices to circumvent the normal appeals court process and quickly decide the question, which looms large in Trump’s prosecution in Washington over allegations of election interference.”

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    My sense is the Supremes are looking for a way to avoid this ruling, and pass it off to the DC Circuit. So the stay is lifted, the trial goes on while trump pursues his district level appeals.

     

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        The DC court is only a cou0le of weeks away. January 9th I believe. If they rule against Trmp, they’ll also probably lift the stay.

        • Nougat@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Yes, that’s when they begin to hear oral arguments. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously slow with their rulings. They took a year to rule that Trump could be sued for damages related to Jan 6. Not that he was liable, mind you, but that he wasn’t immune from civil suit.

          How long it will take the court to rule is an unknown, but the pace at which they are moving the case forward to a hearing indicates they intend to move quickly on ruling as well.

          Judge Chutkan issued the stay, which is essentially automatic and procedural. Once the appeals court rules on the case, the stay is lifted.

    • Dippy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      Or tired of all the trump shit being flooded their way like the rest of the US.

      I know they are a majority conservative and want their candidate, but even if elected it’s not going to stop cases about him having to go to them and loading them up with more and more work. I’d be annoyed.

      • Neato@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m confused. I’m sure SCOTUS is annoyed at having to deal with so many cases from just 1 person. I’m annoyed at my job when 1 customer makes a lot of extra work for us. That’s like, every damn day at most jobs, though.

        They can decline to take cases which means that they are agreeing with the lower court rulings. The only other option is for law enforcement to not pursue charges against a felonious former president.

        • Dippy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yea that’s the point. At some point could just be lazy and not take it and divert responsibility by agreeing with the lower courts, a lot easier then actually hearing it.

          At work I do a lot to avoid having more work come my way. If I can push it off. 9 times out of 10 I’m pushing it somewhere else.