Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Rimbo 26167]

38 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

But considering you’re on this site, I think you just might be the group idiot…

umm... hello? I'M RIGHT HERE.

[tx 3 putt 77622]

On 2/1/2024 at 6:03 PM, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

could this circle back to trump and his lawyers told him what to say on the stand ?

[TwiceHorn 31629]

Haven't seen a link to the opinion itself, so here it is.  https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/1AC5A0E7090A350785258ABB0052D942/$file/23-3228-2039001.pdf

Guess I didn't paste it or backed it up before posting.

Really solid opinion that runs the constitutional traps really well.  It is an improvement upon Chutkan's opinion (appellate courts, especially the DC Circuit, can be expected to be more adept with consitutional analysis than trial court judges, it's what they do).  This was worth waiting for because I think it substantially reduces the likelihood of certiorari.

The shortened timing on the mandate pending USSCt. review is just what the doctor ordered as far as getting Trump off his fat, dilatory ass.

Edited February 7 by TwiceHorn

[SydneyCarton 48222]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Haven't seen a link to the opinion itself, so here it is.  

Try it this time with the actual link plz. 

[Gatorubet 30325]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Try it this time with the actual link plz. 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0_1.pdf

[TwiceHorn 31629]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I am of the wholly uneducated and most likely naïve opinion that crimes do not fall within the course and scope of POTUS' official duties and actions, unless we don't consider the Constitution a standard of law:

 

Here's where that approach falls short.

A crime is not a crime until a defendant is convicted of a crime.  Until then it is an alleged crime.  An alleged crime is anything a prosecutor can coax a grand jury into true billing an indictment, so, a "ham sandwich."  If all it takes to remove immunity is an indictment for a criminal offense, politically motivated prosecutors and administrations could get up to fuckery in no time flat. 

Sure, some alleged crimes are more obviously criminal than others, like murder, rape, sodomy, mopery, etc.  It is also highly likely that those old-fashioned, obvious crimes are not in any way official duties.

But a President or other government official is highly likely to be indicted for a "statutory" crime, one with no obvious common-law analog, like the above.  Something like money laundering, or a sophisticated, "honest services" bribery scheme.  You can't tell on the face of it whether those are actually crimes until the jury weighs in.  Immunity loses a lot of its purpose and effectiveness if you can't tell whether it exists until the defendant is convicted.

Remember, immunity is intended to protect the government from interference, not particular government officials.

So, you have to look at the character of the acts alleged to be criminal (without resort to whether they are in fact crimes somewhere on the books) and determine whether those are official acts committed by an official that also happen to be crimes if convicted (or actionable civil wrongs, which is a lot more likely and for which immunity still exists in many instances).

Edited February 7 by TwiceHorn

[Dnaguy 12134]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I am very likely the group idiot.  But that should make you absolutely terrified because it means you're even something worse   

But honestly, this is what the MAGA movement emboldened.  It was, and is, the mobilization of 25mm people who were disenfranchised, embarrassed, and sidelined from politics because they lacked the civid engagement, intelligence, and wherewithal.  And somebody came along and convinced them that it wasn't their fault---they were just marginalized by Libs, Browns, and Elites.  And I honestly don't know where the fuck we go from here even after he dies.  But we gotta figure it out soon.  You think I'm  fucking annoyance, you have no idea what's still on our collective horizon.  Most will to back to hibernate, but there's enough of the stupids that we're gonna have to deal with for decades to come and they got a beef on their shoulder the size of an F-250.  

 

Here's my rosy prediction:

Everything that man touches turns to shit.

He's King Mierda.

His most fervent supports will also likely die in the next 10 years as they're dumb, obese, diabetic, and 60+ now.

For the Republican Party itself, it will be a zombie party that sticks around but never has the power it did since Reagan. 

It lacks ideas, it lacks a growing base, it still has billionaires, and democrats are, well, democrats.

Eventually the pendulum swings back and all this right wing bs is exercised from the body politic.

Amendments are passed to handle the gun issue, preservation of the right to choose, money /= speech, and sex and gender equality.

However, as we all grow old and creaky the hot button issues around AI, speech, health care, worker's rights, climate change, the global south, and the ever hotter political climate of the Pacific start to really weigh on us.

There is a splintering of the electorate and the Republicans cease on this to re-invent their party to be relevant again.

[Slacks 6889]

I think I would like my tagline to be "King Mierda"

What's the cost to turn "Legacy Members" into "King Mierda"

treeth fitty?

Edited February 7 by Slacks

[Bozo_Casanova 26582]

Lol

 

[TwiceHorn 31629]

52 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Lol

 

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

Edited February 7 by TwiceHorn

[NAVY 6747]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

Appreciate the detailed law-splaining homie 

[Gatorubet 30325]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

it seems they were sitting around the bong in the DC Circuit break room, and in between hits asked their colleagues what they thought. Apparently everyone agrees that the panel was correct, so there is no real reason to ask for an en banc hearing.    

I think that got sufficiently communicated to the Orange Pustule and his legal team. 

[Rimbo 26167]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

Well, I mean... this WAS a "duh." Totally non-controversial.

[TwiceHorn 31629]

17 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Well, I mean... this WAS a "duh." Totally non-controversial.

Well, it was a question of first impression, never decided before. and those can go in funny directions. 

It's not enough to just say the President can't above the law.  We have variations of sovereign immunity all over this nation, mostly in civil cases, but it's friggin everywhere.  And when sovereign immunity is in effect, it places the official in question, and the government more broadly, above the law.  So that argument turns out to actually be pretty facile in that we have officials above the law on a near-daily basis (qualified immunity in police brutality cases being a glaring example, but it operates in more rational ways, too).

Fitzgerald  and Clinton extend a pretty healthy immunity to the President in civil cases and the argument to extend that to criminal cases is not as far-fetched as it seems.  In civil cases, a President, sitting or former, is pretty much immune for acts occurring in office.  So, yeah, he's above the law in a lot of cases.

The beauty of this opinion is that it takes the arguments for immunity seriously, and then seriously shreds them with tons of citations to prior case law, originalist history, and things like the Federalist Papers.  It's very well done.  And signed off on by Henderson, a GHWB appointee who remains quite conservative and militant about it.  

[Gatorubet 30325]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

This cannot be true. I was assured all of the judges were in the tank for Trump, they let them get away with everything, and even though this was a rocket docket quick decision, the delay (because they were drafting an airtight decision) was deemed to be another sign that no one would do anything to stop Trump’s ass-hattery, let alone shorten his efforts to prolong his appeals - and sabotage any efforts to find an appealable issue through brilliant opinion drafting.  

You have disappointed many people here Twice.

[jimmyjazz 46303]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Here's where that approach falls short.

A crime is not a crime until a defendant is convicted of a crime.  Until then it is an alleged crime.  An alleged crime is anything a prosecutor can coax a grand jury into true billing an indictment, so, a "ham sandwich."  If all it takes to remove immunity is an indictment for a criminal offense, politically motivated prosecutors and administrations could get up to fuckery in no time flat. 

Sure, some alleged crimes are more obviously criminal than others, like murder, rape, sodomy, mopery, etc.  It is also highly likely that those old-fashioned, obvious crimes are not in any way official duties.

But a President or other government official is highly likely to be indicted for a "statutory" crime, one with no obvious common-law analog, like the above.  Something like money laundering, or a sophisticated, "honest services" bribery scheme.  You can't tell on the face of it whether those are actually crimes until the jury weighs in.  Immunity loses a lot of its purpose and effectiveness if you can't tell whether it exists until the defendant is convicted.

Remember, immunity is intended to protect the government from interference, not particular government officials.

So, you have to look at the character of the acts alleged to be criminal (without resort to whether they are in fact crimes somewhere on the books) and determine whether those are official acts committed by an official that also happen to be crimes if convicted (or actionable civil wrongs, which is a lot more likely and for which immunity still exists in many instances).

I have no fucking clue what you're saying, but I've been playing guitar all night and might have drunk some beers.

Thanks for trying.

[atomheartbevo 89863]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no fucking clue what you're saying, but I've been playing guitar all night and might have drunk some beers.

Thanks for trying.

All you need to know

It don't matter if the courts say President Trump has no immunity, because citizen Jesus Christ also knows what it's like to be rejected by the high courts, and his expert testimony will result in a quick appeal, since no jury would want to be known as the Pontius Pilate of their church

[The Original Greaser Bob 2852]

9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have no fucking clue what you're saying, but I've been playing guitar all night and might have drunk some beers.

David Crosby got inspired by reefer, not Stella Artois Lite.

You're doing it wrong.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2852]

Ha ha.  I keep hitting refresh on this waiting for Ogre-On to issue his ruling.

[Gatorubet 30325]

“ Your honor, I’d like to offer into evidence Saint Peter’s Judgment Book….also known one day a year as ‘Santa’s Naughty or Nice’ list, and I’m pretty sure it will show  - - uh-oh.  It looks here like he’s been a tad bit rape-y!”

 

[TeeDubya 3362]

28 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

 

where are the lord and savior's legs?

"FATHER!!  WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN MY MOBILITY?"

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

10 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

This cannot be true. I was assured all of the judges were in the tank for Trump, they let them get away with everything, and even though this was a rocket docket quick decision, the delay (because they were drafting an airtight decision) was deemed to be another sign that no one would do anything to stop Trump’s ass-hattery, let alone shorten his efforts to prolong his appeals - and sabotage any efforts to find an appealable issue through brilliant opinion drafting.  

You have disappointed many people here Twice.

 

I'll take this one. 

I have never said the judges were in the tank for DoTARd. I have continually said the system is rigged* to allow people like DOtaRd (wealthy, white, bad faith actors) to avoid consequences by delaying delaying delaying. 

Which is exactly what has been happening. 

 

After this bullshit comes back from the supremes, it'll just be some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. 

I will give all my rep to you and Twice and anybody else who wants it if he is still alive when the Jan 6 trial concludes, regardless of the verdict. 

 

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

 

 

['stache 21893]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddamn, Turley is beclowning himself.

The DC Circuit local rules are more generous on timing of rehearing than the Federal Rules, but all of them are caveated "unless the court shortens or lengthens the time."

ETA:  note that rehearing itself isn't all that important, but the "mandate," which is what returns jurisdiction to the trial court.  If nothing else happens, the mandate  goes back to the trial court seven days from the date a rehearing petition is due or decided, if filed.

Under Fed. R. App. P., you have 14 days to seek rehearing/en banc in a criminal case (Turley read the civil rule).  DC gives you 30 in all cases (he didn't read these at all).  But in this one, DC gave him a week to seek relief from SCOTUS.  Which indicates they aren't staying the mandate if he fucks around with rehearing,  I haven't read the order, exactly, but it appears that the court said the mandate will issue on February 12 unless Trump seeks relief from SCOTUS.

Also, a super-curious thing.  This opinion is "per curiam."  That means literally "for the court," meaning the opinion is not that of a single judge, or two of the three, or unanimous, but instead reflective of the judgment of the entire court.

Usually, that's reserved for very short and non-controversial opinions (at least notwithstanding the controversy between the parties).  Usually, if you lose an appeal on a per curiam opinion, that's a pretty humiliating defeat:  your arguments were just barely worthy of consideration.

It's kind of a judicial "duh," meaning any panel of judges from the circuit would have decided it the same way.  Pretty unusual for a 57 page opinion of such importance.  It might reflect that the panel judges sought concurrence of all of the judges, possibly in order to deter a petition for rehearing en banc.

I'm pretty sure per curiam still is technically limited to the three judges that heard and decided the case, just no one judge is taking credit for authorship, and it sends a message that the result wasn't close. They may have consulted the other judges before sending that message. He can still seek rehearing en banc but as you note, it won't stay the mandate, unless rehearing is granted, in which case the mandate is recalled, as specifically stated in the judgment. But the point of the per curiam opinion, shortened timelines, and order that the mandate won't be withheld unless granted, is clearly intended to tell his lawyers that the question wasn't close and that rehearing ain't happening, go straight to SCOTUS to get your next loss, we're done with this shit.

[Gatorubet 30325]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm pretty sure per curiam still is technically limited to the three judges that heard and decided the case, just no one judge is taking credit for authorship, and it sends a message that the result wasn't close. They may have consulted the other judges before sending that message. He can still seek rehearing en banc but as you note, it won't stay the mandate, unless rehearing is granted, in which case the mandate is recalled, as specifically stated in the judgment. But the point of the per curiam opinion, shortened timelines, and order that the mandate won't be withheld unless granted, is clearly intended to tell his lawyers that the question wasn't close and that rehearing ain't happening, go straight to SCOTUS to get your next loss, we're done with this shit.

Yup.  This was truly a work of art decision.  Pitch perfect in fact. 

[texasdago 7588]

39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

“ Your honor, I’d like to offer into evidence Saint Peter’s Judgment Book….also known one day a year as ‘Santa’s Naughty or Nice’ list, and I’m pretty sure it will show  - - uh-oh.  It looks here like he’s been a tad bit rape-y!”

 

When you've got Jared Leto on your side...

[DigglerontheHoof 21262]

6 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'll take this one. 

I have never said the judges were in the tank for DoTARd. I have continually said the system is rigged* to allow people like DOtaRd (wealthy, white, bad faith actors) to avoid consequences by delaying delaying delaying. 

Which is exactly what has been happening. 

 

After this bullshit comes back from the supremes, it'll just be some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. 

I will give all my rep to you and Twice and anybody else who wants it if he is still alive when the Jan 6 trial concludes, regardless of the verdict. 

 

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

 

 

So much this.  Every time one appeal is addressed, three more take its place. 

[Rimbo 26167]

11 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'll take this one. 

I have never said the judges were in the tank for DoTARd. I have continually said the system is rigged* to allow people like DOtaRd (wealthy, white, bad faith actors) to avoid consequences by delaying delaying delaying. 

Which is exactly what has been happening. 

 

After this bullshit comes back from the supremes, it'll just be some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. 

I will give all my rep to you and Twice and anybody else who wants it if he is still alive when the Jan 6 trial concludes, regardless of the verdict. 

 

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So much this.  Every time one appeal is addressed, three more take its place. 

My only response to you two is: Which cases have you idiots been following? Because so far, Trump is absolutely getting his ass kicked here.

[dcbc 14546]

14 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

That actually was the only part I think I take issue with.  The system is set up to make sure cases are reviewable for errors and abuses of discretion in the lower court and misconstruction of the law or its application at the intermediate appellate level.  It's not rigged.  Instead, it is utilized and/or manipulated by people who can afford to hire lawyers to do so for reasons, i.e., delay, other than for which it originally envisioned.  

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

per curiam still is technically limited to the three judges that heard and decided the case, just no one judge is taking credit for authorship,

My understanding as well.  At the state-appellate level, it's limited to Anders opinions, agreed dismissals, and abatement orders predominantly.

Edited February 7 by dcbc

[DigglerontheHoof 21262]

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

My only response to you two is: Which cases have you idiots been following? Because so far, Trump is absolutely getting his ass kicked here.

I didn't say he wasn't.  My bitch is that it is taking for fucking ever. If one has money (or unlimited stupid redneck funding) one can delay a trial indefinitely. 

It's fucking infuriating to me.     

[safe sex 11800]

I'm so fucked if I'm ever in court as either defendant or plaintiff lmao 

[Gatorubet 30325]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So much this.  Every time one appeal is addressed, three more take its place. 

it’s almost like there are several levels of courts of appeal - and that you can appeal more than one issue in each case.  I get the frustration. Not sure how a plan to take those rights away would work.  

it is certainly true that if you have an unlimited litigation budget, then the fiscal restraints from wasting money on stupid appeals is no longer an issue in a decision whether to file said stupid appeal.   I certainly agree that, from a wealth standpoint, really rich people will file more stupid shit. Because they can.  I’m still gonna need someone to explain to me how to remove those established rights from Rich individuals in a manner that is constitutionally permitted.    Every bite at an appellate apple is another opportunity to theoretically get the proper result.  Removing or limiting those appeal rights could hurt Trump in his individual case right now, but it would have the unintended consequence of eliminating the right to appeal for folks with more valid legal arguments.  Like all complicated, nuanced, intertwined matters, appeal process fixes are difficult

[TwiceHorn 31629]

25 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That actually was the only part I think I take issue with.  The system is set up to make sure cases are reviewable for errors and abuses of discretion in the lower court and misconstruction of the law or its application at the intermediate appellate level.  It's not rigged.  Instead, it is utilized and/or manipulated by people who can afford to hire lawyers to do so for reasons, i.e., delay, other than for which it originally envisioned.  

My understanding as well.  At the state-appellate level, it's limited to Anders opinions and abatement orders predominantly.

Yeah, less-than-rich defendants employ delay tactics with success as well as rich, just no one pays attention to them. 

The poor are not wholly unable to employ similar tactics to the rich, they're just less likely to, and lack of funds is just one reason, but not necessarily THE reason.

[TwiceHorn 31629]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

it’s almost like there are several levels of courts of appeal - and that you can appeal more than one issue in each case.  I get the frustration. Not sure how a plan to take those rights away would work.  

it is certainly true that if you have an unlimited litigation budget, then the fiscal restraints from wasting money on stupid appeals is no longer an issue in a decision whether to file said stupid appeal.   I certainly agree that, from a wealth standpoint, really rich people will file more stupid shit. Because they can.  I’m still gonna need someone to explain to me how to remove those established rights from Rich individuals in a manner that is constitutionally permitted.    Every bite at an appellate apple is another opportunity to theoretically get the proper result.  Removing or limiting those appeal rights could hurt Trump in his individual case right now, but it would have the unintended consequence of eliminating the right to appeal for folks with more valid legal arguments.  Like all complicated, nuanced, intertwined matters, appeal process fixes are difficult

Yep. Take these rights away from the rich and guilty, you take them away from the poor and sometimes innocent, as well.

We as a country are doing a bit better at providing the indigent and poor with competent counsel that is more than a nod to the 6th Amendment right to counsel.  We have a long way to go, but it's an issue that people are working on and progress is being made.

[dcbc 14546]

31 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

it’s almost like there are several levels of courts of appeal - and that you can appeal more than one issue in each case.  I get the frustration. Not sure how a plan to take those rights away would work.  

 

 

It seems to me as if Trump's appeals are being addressed far more quickly than an ordinary appellant's would be.  It's almost as if these appellate courts recognize that time is a factor and have expedited the process.  I know it's not quick enough for our your-meal-in-30 minutes-or-it's-free mindset.  But while the trials get delayed, they are not being delayed as much as they might be.  

[dcbc 14546]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The poor are not wholly unable to employ similar tactics to the rich, they're just less likely to, and lack of funds is just one reason, but not necessarily THE reason.

Don't get me started on the pro se mandamus.

[safe sex 11800]

I'll never forget a nonprofit legal service telling me to not sue the employer who was discriminating against me because the employer would just kill my suit with money and time.

Basically just "I guess you've gotta get a new job"

Edited February 7 by safe sex

[Steamboat1874 4090]

58 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I didn't say he wasn't.  My bitch is that it is taking for fucking ever. If one has money (or unlimited stupid redneck funding) one can delay a trial indefinitely. 

It's fucking infuriating to me.     

Ken Paxton certainly comes to mind here.

All of his tactics have really pissed me off.

[Rimbo 26167]

29 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

It seems to me as if Trump's appeals are being addressed far more quickly than an ordinary appellant's would be.  It's almost as if these appellate courts recognize that time is a factor and have expedited the process.  I know it's not quick enough for our your-meal-in-30 minutes-or-it's-free mindset.  But while the trials get delayed, they are not being delayed as much as they might be.  

I mean... it's also more likely for an appeal to be handled quickly if there are no grounds for it, or the given grounds are slipshod folderol.

[Rimbo 26167]

11 minutes ago, safe sex said:

I'll never forget a nonprofit legal service telling me to not sue the employer who was discriminating against me because the employer would just kill my suit with money and time.

Basically just "I guess you've gotta get a new job"

Bad advice can be had at all price levels.

Every mighty oak started out as a nut that held its ground.

[Macanudo 13019]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'll take this one. 

I have never said the judges were in the tank for DoTARd. I have continually said the system is rigged* to allow people like DOtaRd (wealthy, white, bad faith actors) to avoid consequences by delaying delaying delaying. 

Which is exactly what has been happening. 

 

After this bullshit comes back from the supremes, it'll just be some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. 

I will give all my rep to you and Twice and anybody else who wants it if he is still alive when the Jan 6 trial concludes, regardless of the verdict. 

 

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

 

 

I think the word you're looking for is "weaponized."

[dcbc 14546]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

I mean... it's also more likely for an appeal to be handled quickly if there are no grounds for it, or the given grounds are slipshod folderol.

Once it's submitted, sure.  I'm less familiar with the federal side of the coin, but if they're on an accelerated briefing schedule and pushing on the folks at the trial-court level to get the appellate record in order, along with priority dates given for oral argument, I wouldn't be surprised.  Intermediate state appellate courts in Texas have a 2 year from filing and 1 year from submission deadline for all cases.  Some courts have tighter internal deadlines and most cases get handled more quickly, but the max deadlines are pretty lengthy, just as a basis for comparison.

Edited February 7 by dcbc

[Gatorubet 30325]

7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Bad advice can be had at all price levels.

Every mighty oak started out as a nut that held its ground.

in my experience with those type of discrimination cases most people who feel they have suffered discrimination are unaware what the courts say about the elements of proof in a discrimination case.    

I used to tilted windmills all the time when I did 1983 police brutality cases, but as difficult as those cases were, they were a walk in the park as opposed to most employment, discrimination cases.    I totally agree that the body of law built up makes it difficult to win one of those cases.    it might’ve been more accurate for the nonprofit to have told you that the odds of winning given your facts are very slight, and that is not the bread and butter for nonprofits. They help people in cases they can win, not cases that will take up a lot of their scant resources and end up being dismissed 

[Pato del Muerto 52642]

21 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Bad advice can be had at all price levels.

Every mighty oak started out as a nut that held its ground.

The first nut doesn’t have an established mighty oak with which to compete for sunlight and nutrients

[Slacks 6889]

2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I'll take this one. 

I have never said the judges were in the tank for DoTARd. I have continually said the system is rigged* to allow people like DOtaRd (wealthy, white, bad faith actors) to avoid consequences by delaying delaying delaying. 

Which is exactly what has been happening. 

 

After this bullshit comes back from the supremes, it'll just be some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. Then some other bullshit. 

I will give all my rep to you and Twice and anybody else who wants it if he is still alive when the Jan 6 trial concludes, regardless of the verdict. 

 

*If you don't like the word "rigged" then substitute "set up" or "designed". Use whatever word you want. 

 

 

 

Shit's rigged. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

One thing that just occurred to me. The judgment says something like we are looking at this as someone indicted after they leave the executive, as though that was important to saying no immunity.  But we’ve already had that, right?  Spiro Agnew was indicted while he was VP for tax fraud, right?

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

Now it seems that he's gonna blackmail Biden into getting charges tossed.

 

 

 

[High Plains Drifter 11054]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

The first nut doesn’t have an established mighty oak with which to compete for sunlight and nutrients

 

I remember my first nut.....

 

wait, what are we talking about again?

 

 

[Red Five 40964]

Gee, it's pretty tough to see what he's doing here. For the billionth time, imagine being dumb enough to fall for it.

Also, you tell a President to do what you want or you will indict him later, and you're probably going to jail. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

One thing that just occurred to me. The judgment says something like we are looking at this as someone indicted after they leave the executive, as though that was important to saying no immunity.  But we’ve already had that, right?  Spiro Agnew was indicted while he was VP for tax fraud, right?

Looks like WaPo did an article on this last year. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/made-by-history/2023/04/10/there-is-precedent-trumps-indictment-spiro-agnew/

[Js1 85638]

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Now it seems that he's gonna blackmail Biden into getting charges tossed.