Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.
But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.
The right to a speedy trial is the right of the defense and the prosecution. I hope they reject Trump’s motion.
Do you have anything supporting your claim that the prosecution has a right to a speedy trial?
I heard it from actively practicing lawyers on the Legal AF podcast, and I don’t know which episode. I don’t have a written source to give you.
I really appreciate this exchange. Someone casually makes a claim, someone else requests sources, and the original poster took the time to respond and detail where they heard the info. Great job on all of you. Now I’ll try to add to the conversation.
IANAL but it looks like it’s a defendant’s right. It’s origins seem to be about protecting a defendant from a never-ending or egregiously drawn out prosecution. I think it’s fair to say that it gives both sides tools in this case. It seems pretty obvious to me that the defendant here (orange man) wants to delay and would maybe even decline his right to a speedy trial if offered the choice. Meanwhile the prosecution can press the judges to keep things moving by pointing out that they (the prosecutors and judges) are legally obligated to give the defendant a speedy trial.
and sources:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-2-1/ALDE_00012979/
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB4.htmI appreciate the positive response, but I have to strongly disagree and point out how this is a thing that is so bothersome with lemmy (and reddit as well).
As you said, someone just casually made a claim. If one has anything more than the most basic education about the COTUs, they would know it was intended to put restrictions on the federal government, not restrictions on individuals. So the argument that this was also supposed to restrict the individual doesn’t even remotely pass the sniff test.
They were unanimously upvoted. At this point, it’s still unanimous. All because it’s what people want to be true in this case. Including myself.
A poster asked them to cite the claim that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Met with twice as many downvotes as upvotes. A reasonable question, 100% more downvotes than upvotes.
Their response is nothing more than “I heard it somewhere from a source that knows what they are talking about.” Almost literally it’s that vague.
They were unanimously upvoted. Again. For what is effectively nothing. All because it’s what people want to be true.
It was a garbage and (I believe) ignorant claim, which you seem to have figured out, and it was universally accepted. It was a reasonable question, which was punished with downvotes. And their response to the question was absolutely nothing, and it was universally accepted.
This is not how it should work. I would argue it’s the exact opposite of how it should work.
Thank you for posting this. These are the kinds of comments that we need more of on the internet. Ones that aren’t afraid to push back on the errors of the hivemind, however justified the sentiment may be.
We both know the question was very much in bad faith. Write all the novels you want and that won’t change
It’s can only be obviously bad faith if you recognize the claim is obviously bs.
But I don’t know it was bad faith. It could be, or it could be a genuine question because it clashes with what they believe to be true, or it could be that they know the claim is false and they are trying to let the poster come to the conclusion on their own.
You’re confusing your desire for it to be bad faith, justifying your down voting, with knowing it to be.
You’re willing to go far on a limb for this unlikely scenario, and I think a lot of people can guess why
How was it bad faith? The poster I was responding to was simply wrong
Beyond the defendant’s right, its more an observation that justice delayed unduly is justice denied
I’ve only really heard Popok say the common expression
Justice delayed is justice denied
But its more a global and ethical statement that the defendant and the victim and the People deserve to have and see justice be done.
Not sure if there’s an actual affirmative right per se but its more a reflection that Trump has used his wealth and threatening tactics to escape every legal issue he’s created and so fsr basically gotten away with it all. Any normal person would have long been bankrupted and imprisoned long before he was even starting to be properly investigated abd pursued
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I think it was in that thing the orange ape man continually wipes his ass with…I think it’s called the Constitution?
Look I agree that these proceedings should move quickly to put Trump behind bars.
But… If I’m reading it correctly, that says that the accused has a right to a speedy trial, not the prosecution, which is what the above commenter asked for.
Trump famously doesn’t have a strong constitution.
deleted by creator
Yes I do… Down votes!
Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.
There is nothing rare about the request. It’s called “cert before judgement” and the DoJ used it 10 times in the four years that Trump was president.
It’s most commonly used in a situation like this where the appeal is interlocutory meaning the appeal stops the trial cold while it’s resolved.
Delay, delay, delay.
He knows his ass is toast.
I don’t even think he’s doing this because his ass is toast. He’s doing it because he thinks he’s going to win the election, and if/when he does he’ll just pardon himself. Then the point is moot.
Honestly, if America is a place where someone can commit treason countless times, get elected, and absolve himself of that treason, I really don’t want to be here anymore.
And don’t forget he literally ran his campaign on “I think my opponent should be locked up but is escaping justice because rich politicians don’t live by the same rules you and me do”.
Well, you will be, so…then what?
I mean, that’s a valid assumption. But I have options.
Ironic given he kicks everything else up to the Supreme Court and just proves he wants to use the Appeals Court to delay past 2024
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case.
But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.
“The Special Counsel urges this Court to bypass those ordinary procedures, including the longstanding preference for prior consideration by at least one court of appeals, and rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon.
The Court should decline that invitation at this time, for several reasons,” attorneys for Trump wrote.
Even if they decline to hear it before the DC Circuit weighs in, it’s likely that the case will come before them again soon, as the appeals court has said it will expedite its review of the matter.
The original article contains 249 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 20%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Do the thing I specifically hired you to do!”
I think the conservative justices will be happy to see his demise and the rise of his more competent successor. I doubt he can count on them for any favors.
This is a lose-lose. If this is shot down, it’s just another case of presidents (and former presidents) being above the law. If this goes through, the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.
edit: If you don’t think republican states would abuse this, let me remind you that republicans are still trying to impeach Biden just to retaliate for the Trump impeachments.
Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?
Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.
Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?
You’re strawmanning me pretty hard (hopefully unintentionally). I’m not arguing for the courts to do anything; my point was that there will be negative consequences no matter what they do.
Maybe they shouldn’t 
Your comment was literally arguing exactly that.
I’m going to be overly verbose with you since you appreciate specificity so much.
Edward Teach’s comment:
Why should a court of law give a shit what Republicans will or won’t do in retaliation for some perceived sleight?
Edward is implying that the court should ignore the political repercussions of their decision (i.e., “why should [they] care”).
My response:
Maybe they shouldn’t, but it’s still a tough situation politically.
I am here acknowledging the salience of his point while also being intentionally non-committal. (“Maybe they shouldn’t [care about the consequences]”.) Maybe Edward is right that the supreme court should ignore the political fallout. I then return to my original point that it is a tough situation either way.
Edward Teach’s comment:
Maybe they shouldn’t?! You realize you’re arguing for the law to be applied depending on who it benefits politically, don’t you?
Here he is straw manning me because he read too much into my original comment. I never argued that the court should or shouldn’t do anything, only that there will be negative consequences either way. Edward assumed that the purpose behind my comment was to say the supreme court should rule in favor of Trump. This is not the case.
Maybe they shouldn’t
☝️this is you arguing whether the court should or shouldn’t do something.
you can be verbose or succinct; it changes nothing other than the time amount of you waste.
Only if the Supreme Court, whose job it is to actually determine what is lawful according US Constitution (and then other federal law and precedent) decide they are not going to do their jobs anymore.
The whole reason Supreme Court justices have appointment for life is so that their decisions can’t be used against them by those in power to punish for a ruling those in power don’t like. Supremes have almost “plot armor” in this regard. What do they have to fear from making a ruling that republicans don’t like?
Their billionaire sugar daddies will dump them?
Allowing our justice system to operate based on perceived political consequences seems like a terrible idea. Republicans will continue to be seditious trash regardless, holding one of them accountable for crimes they committed won’t change that. Their moves should not even factor into what the justice department/courts does or doesn’t do.
Democrats’ guiding principle is “but what might Republicans do?” Context doesn’t change that.
I think people are assuming that I’m recommending a course of action when my entire point is that either scenario will have negative consequences. That being said, I agree with everything you said here.
If not that, then people are confused about what your point was other than to generally be negative.
This whole “don’t hold republicans accountable because they’ll weaponize the courts” is such a meh argument.
They already weaponize the courts.
But so far, without any evidence of wrongdoing against Democrats they try to do this against, they have had zero success.
While there is actual assloads of evidence against people like Trump (and others).
It’ll spend some time and resources from democrats, but it’ll also put some of the worst republicans in jail.
Buddy they’ve had plenty of success. They’ll bury you in paperwork if you stick your neck out. They already paid off the judge, they’re just waiting for you.
So what you’re saying is, they’ll be insufferable assholes no matter what we do, and we should see to it that a criminal repays society for his crimes.
the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.
I don’t see this as a special concern. They’re going to do this no matter what.
If this goes through, the republican states will use it against democratic candidates.
This has nothing to do with the state cases, this is Federal & dealing with the Insurrection.
If a democratic former president incites an Insurrection &/or steals top secret documents & gives them to our enemies I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well.
Isn’t this assuming the republicans are operating in good faith? They aren’t. They care more about what they can get away with than whether it’s justified. I’m sure republican states could find other reasons to take Biden off of the ballet come the next election. There seem to be a lot more legal grey areas than we were aware of. (For example, before January 6th, who knew that the vice president could potentially steal an election?)
I’m sure republican states could find other reasons to take Biden off of the ballet come the next election.
Treason & Insurrection are literally the only way a US citizen over the age of 35 can be removed from a federal ballot in the USA.
I wouldn’t put it past them to label some Hunter Biden conspiracy theory bs “treason”.
That said, I concede the point that it may not be as easy as I was implying. Or at least I hope its not that easy. Our democracy is looking fragile these days.
I wouldn’t put it past them to label some Hunter Biden conspiracy theory bs “treason”.
This is the exact reason why Treason is defined in the Constitution & has a very, very narrow definition.
I’m willing to be proven wrong since I’m no expert on constitutional law, but treason is constituted by: “levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” You’re right that the first part is very specific, but that second part about helping the enemies of the republic could be abused.
