f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 1/10
👉🏾jack pushed his chips all-in
this is it, for all the marbles👈🏾

my reading from legal eagles

👁️‍🗨️ jack asked SP to respond in 7 days, they granted his motion to expedite within hours!

trump must respond by dec 20; fast!

note: scotus has agreed to consider the case. not take yet or at all
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
Avatar Avatar Avatar
0
0
5
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 2/10
Harry Litman
Sup Ct could deny cert, or take cert and decide against Trump; either way, that’s it for the immunity issue, & the coast is clear. Or they could take cert & decide for Trump, which would be as cataclysmic as Bush v Gore, & that’s the end of the case.
This is now the main event.
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
2
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 3/10
Harry Litman
Court could’ve waited a day or two to order Trump to respond and definitely could’ve given him more than nine days, which is way fast. The Court is very aware of the calendar here. That’s a good thing.
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 4/10
Harry Litman
Smith cites US v Nixon in calling for Court to take up case & expedite it. If they do that, & they affirm, we're on track for trial. If they don't do that, or they reverse, that's ballgame.

Remember Kavanaugh singled out US vs Nixon as one of the shining landmarks of SP jurisprudence
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
1
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 5/10
Harry Litman
Strikes me that Trump’s hands are basically tied. He would far prefer the court to take this up in a few months, but he can’t really oppose the petition only then to come back later and say decide the issue. Looks to me as if DOJ has boxed him in.
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 6/10
Harry Litman
DOJ could’ve played it passive, and tried to suggest to the court that it didn’t need to take up the immunity issue. But it realized that was a longshot and not candid besides; so they very smartly decided to jump the gun.
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 7/10
Harry Litman
DOJ could have played it passive, hoping that the court didn’t take cert from a decision against Trump in the DC circuit. Instead it forces the issue now.
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 8/10
From Supreme Court rules: "A writ of certiorari before judgment is appropriate when “the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court.”
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 9/10
From motion for cert before judgment: "It is of imperative public importance that [Trump's] claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected."
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0
f r e d k i p t e r
A
thread 10/10
Steve Vladeck
Historically, it was unusual for #SCOTUS to grant certiorari "before judgment" (leapfrogging courts of appeals).

But not only is this the kind of case in which the Court *would* take such a step, it's also granted such review 19 time since 2019
10:11 PM - Dec 11, 2023
0
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}