1y ago

Trump asks Supreme Court to keep Jan. 6 trial on hold, citing 2024 election

Basically: I committed a crime while trying to stay in office illegally, but you can't hold me to account because I'm running for office.

Pretty much "I'm a big-deal Republican, so you can't apply the normal rules to me, even though others have run for President from jail"

29 comments

- Checks. And. Balances. The Founding Fathers literally wrote this into the constitution to avoid this type of trash.
  And 8th grader with a history textbook could explain this shit.
  *Any 8th grader
- good. let every presidential term end with the asshole being led away in handcuffs. the presidency as we know it needs to cease to exist. arrest all of them.
  
  Anarchy is fun until the water main breaks.
- Why don’t we just let them file their frivolous lawsuits in ‘28, and throw their asses out of court in discovery when they present 0 evidence, like what pretty much always happens with these imbeciles?!
- Well put!
Your honor you have to put my insurrection trial on hold as I am too busy planning my next insurrection
- This trial would be very detrimental to my future attempts to pardon myself.
So if the president can’t do anything illegal, unless he’s been impeached and convicted for it…
Dark Brandon needs to send Trump to Gitmo and see how that changes the math.
- Look, normally I'm opposed to enhanced interrogation.
  But if the CIA put it on pay-per-view, I might dish out to see how quickly Trump breaks down.
  
  enhanced entertainment
- Biden would be successfully impeached.
- I don't favor extrajudicial punishment like that; way too easy for future Presidents to abuse.
  
  You do understand that 1) these ideas are floated mostly in jest and 2) they are floated because they map more or less directly to statements Trump has already made outlining his intentions, and he will not require precedent to do so.
  Trump didn’t require precedent for anything he did, up to and including not conceding the election and attempting the violent overthrow of the government of the United States. I’m not sure why people say “Appointing additional justices just means the Republicans will do the same!” Of course they’d do it tomorrow if they had the 6-3 position reversed.
  Precedent (even in Supreme Court cases), congressional comity, “respect the office of not the man,” and everything else has been thrown out the window in an accelerating process, but completely since 2016.
  Setting a precedent means nothing anymore, unless we can expect Joe Biden to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump and the FBI to arrest all members of Congress and the courts who would hold him accountable for it. There, he’d have some precedent.
  
  Thank you — that’s the point
If they want a delay, he shouldn’t be allowed to run until the trial is complete.
Edit: trial not trail
This is a dumb argument for anyone with sense, but it's probably the best one he could possibly make.
For whatever godforsaken reason, the minute you run for office, the courts lose their goddamn minds and act like, "Courts hate this one trick, but they can't stop you."
- We all should commit crime and run for President.
These justices seemed incredulous that since no state had needed to remove an insurrectionist in the past they were uncertain if a state could, as if we should expect insurrectionists running annually.
I’m not holding my breath.
The impeachment procedure is remediation as a means to remove someone from office based on bad behavior. The basis of high crimes and misdemeanors would imply it being criminal, and properly as I recall it Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about a BJ which would fall under perjury. If Trump was charged every time he lied we would never have done anything else during his term...
None of that shields someone from actual criminal charges though. There was this thought that 'if the president does it then it's by default lawful' but if that actually stood as a precident all it takes is one unhinged person getting into office and the whole idea of having checks and balances is out the window. You couldn't sanction anyone for any behavior that the president had engaged in thereafter. In practice you have an emperor with the Congress being nothing more than a token body.
- The basis of high crimes and misdemeanors would imply it being criminal
  That’s an incorrect reading of that phrase. “High crimes and misdemeanors” is a particular term of art that means pretty much the same thing as “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” It means someone holding office who, by virtue of using the powers of that office, abused those powers in a particularly impactful way. It doesn’t necessarily mean the violation of a specific law, although it could obviously include that. There’s obviously legal precedent that provides additional context, but as formulated at the time it was written it basically means “abuse of power.”
  
  I expect so since I'm no lawyer, makes me kind of curious what the most mundane reason any of our relatively few impeachments where for. Even the first of Trump's I don't know would truly fit an existing criminal law without some work, more just acting like a tool against the interests of the nation.
Fun fact: Precedent exists for presidential immunity. Nixon.
Nixon resigned after Watergate because of the obviously impending impeachment by Congress, and then was subsequently granted a pardon by Ford. It can be legally argued that if presidential (or candidate!) immunity existed in law, in any form, then there would have been no reason to resign or grant a pardon as Nixon could have simply stood beside it and blown raspberries. Therefore, it must not exist in law.
- I like that theory, but...
  The president does not have the power of judicial review. Therefore President Ford's actions can't be construed as such.
SCOTUS: Okily dokily!

29 comments