My best read of tonight's order is that the Court was stuck between two camps, and this was the compromise way out. One camp of some number of justices wanted to keep the prosecution on hold indefinitely; one camp wanted to stay out of the case altogether (or summarily affirm). And neither of those camps apparently had enough votes, whic…
My best read of tonight's order is that the Court was stuck between two camps, and this was the compromise way out. One camp of some number of justices wanted to keep the prosecution on hold indefinitely; one camp wanted to stay out of the case altogether (or summarily affirm). And neither of those camps apparently had enough votes, which is how we ended up here. So what this says to me is that the "middle" of the Court (the Chief Justice, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett) wants to resolve this issue, but *also* wants to resolve it before the election, even *if* the result is to make it practically impossible for the trial to wrap up by November. That's an unsatisfying result, to be sure. But I still think (1) a trial by the end of the summer is possible; and (2) we should keep in mind that at least there weren't enough votes for the even worse scenario.
Steve: As good as you are at divining the ways of the Court, how can it possibly justify what I see as "conditional democracy ?" It almost assuredly will reverse the Colorado 14.3 ballot decision and essentially opine, the state has no say on who may appear on its ballots. Yet, the decision today, granting both the stay and cert. essentially says --- unless the stars come into alignment quickly --- the American voting public doesn't have the right to know if one of the presidential candidates is a felon.
Just FYI, "Judge Tracie Porter of the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois ruled today that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Assuming you're correct that some number of justices wanted to keep the prosecution on hold indefinitely, does that surprise you? And does that number -- large enough to prevent the other camp from doing what it wanted -- surprise/concern you?
Steve: Assuming the opinion is handed down before sessions end this summer, what's your educated take on whether or not Smith & Co. will streamline the charges to get the trial process moving faster ?
My best read of tonight's order is that the Court was stuck between two camps, and this was the compromise way out. One camp of some number of justices wanted to keep the prosecution on hold indefinitely; one camp wanted to stay out of the case altogether (or summarily affirm). And neither of those camps apparently had enough votes, which is how we ended up here. So what this says to me is that the "middle" of the Court (the Chief Justice, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett) wants to resolve this issue, but *also* wants to resolve it before the election, even *if* the result is to make it practically impossible for the trial to wrap up by November. That's an unsatisfying result, to be sure. But I still think (1) a trial by the end of the summer is possible; and (2) we should keep in mind that at least there weren't enough votes for the even worse scenario.
Steve: As good as you are at divining the ways of the Court, how can it possibly justify what I see as "conditional democracy ?" It almost assuredly will reverse the Colorado 14.3 ballot decision and essentially opine, the state has no say on who may appear on its ballots. Yet, the decision today, granting both the stay and cert. essentially says --- unless the stars come into alignment quickly --- the American voting public doesn't have the right to know if one of the presidential candidates is a felon.
Just FYI, "Judge Tracie Porter of the Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois ruled today that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection and is disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2024coel13-opinion-and-order-as-filed-2.28.24.pdf
Assuming you're correct that some number of justices wanted to keep the prosecution on hold indefinitely, does that surprise you? And does that number -- large enough to prevent the other camp from doing what it wanted -- surprise/concern you?
Steve: Assuming the opinion is handed down before sessions end this summer, what's your educated take on whether or not Smith & Co. will streamline the charges to get the trial process moving faster ?