Anyone else feel like the #AileenCannon indefinite delay is a dry run for the #supremeCourt doing the same thing?
Like- should people be taking to the streets in protest now? Would that kind of reaction have ANY effect on their ruling? Or would it not even matter?
If folks just shrug this off as "well, that's what we expected," does it incentivize the 'conservative' justices to go hog-wild?
Once they've ruled, it's not like they can walk it back, or there's a higher court to appeal to. #scotus
@Incognitim No, the two situations are extremely different, and the two courts operate in different ways, with different procedures, and just generally, the two situations are apples and oranges.
Just to name one example, in the case of Cannon they are still moving forward with court processes, there is still argument to be made and briefing to be done. But at the Supreme Court all of that homework is already in.
The case before Cannon hasn't been submitted, while the case before the Supreme Court has.
@Incognitim meh, this is just how courts work.
If the prosecutor s needed to meet closer deadlines then they might have prosecuted differently. A lot of this is really based on what prosecutors ask the courts for, knowing that if you go to the court with a complicated ask, that's going to take more time to resolve.
Frankly, I think we need to hold Biden responsible for a lot of these timing issues, including sometimes the state prosecutions as the feds might not have acted as quickly as they need to to get things resolved even there.
@volkris
I'm not so sure I agree with you on the 1st part- the 11th circuit has made quick work of Cannon before, and the sc has shown tremendous alacrity on judgements when it suits them (like 2019-2022, they flew through covid shutdowns, daca, abortion, affirmative action, etc. like they were getting paid by the case...🤔).
But then they take their sweet-ass time with ones like this https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/28/south-carolina-redistricting-nancy-mace-00149577
But I wholeheartedly agree on the 2nd point, although I blame garland more than Biden.
@volkris
And I feel like Smith (and the DoJ after his appointment) has been pretty pro-active when it comes to filing quickly and asking the judge/justices for rulings post-haste. They just haven't felt the urge to comply.
@Incognitim "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
We must not let any president escape accountability for the actions of the executive branch. The buck stops at Biden, not Garland.
As per the Supreme Court, so much depends on the complexity of the cases and the complexity of getting all of the members onto the same page.
It's funny that there's a popular opinion that more people should be added to the Supreme Court, and I just end up thinking, if you think it's hard to herd those cats now, wait until you have to get agreement out of twice as many for a ruling to be issued!
@volkris
Eh- that's what concurring opinions are for. And I'm not sure how complex this immunity case is anymore. It's a pretty well-plowed field at this point. And if they kick it back down, which is my guess, why not just grant Smith's cert months ago?
And I only blame garland more than Biden because once Biden appointed him (which, granted, looks like a worse decision every day), the optics of firing him & replacing him with someone who'd immediately start prosecuting trump would be awful.
@Incognitim Even with concurring opinions, leaving aside the opinion of the court, the concurring opinions get complicated as they address each other, so the shuffling of drafts and redrafts all to be prepared to release a stack of opinions with internal references, that's legitimately complicated.
It would be one thing if there was just a vote announced, but for a case with any complications, including purely perceived complications by a minority on the court, it just takes time, and that's unavoidable.
The immunity case is pretty complicated as the oral arguments indicated, even just noting that different members of the Court had competing visions of what they were even looking to rule on.
If they can't even agree about what they're supposed to decide, well that's a complication!
You say it's a well plowed field, but we're not even sure what field we're talking about 🙂
As for the optics of firing Garland, I think those optics would be straightforward if people better understood the way the federal government is designed, that it's up to Biden.
The optics are primarily bad to the extent that he is able to duck accountability for the actions of his underling.
@volkris
I'd hope everyone that's been paying attention these last 7 years knows it's up to Biden, the same way firing sessions to replace him with barr was up to trump. And I don't wholeheartedly disagree that it would've been a good idea for him to do so...unfortunately, that's just not in Biden's political DNA. He's too much of an institutionalist (which is also why he would never expand the Court).
And literally *any* case that scouts takes can be made as complex as the justices desire...
@volkris
...if they decide to get granular enough. Or as complicated, if they want to argue about what 'the nature' of the case even is.
US v Nixon took under 3 WEEKS.
Bush v Gore took 3 DAYS, and had almost as many concurrences & dissents as there are justices, aaand they stipulated "well, this ruling only applies here, so don't try to read anything else into it." 🤣
So you can miss me with all the "it's soo complicated." If things were reversed, this case would've already been decided. 💯
@Incognitim you're comparing apples and oranges, though.
As I said above, different cases have different levels of complexity and different contexts.
It sounds like you're so focused on outcome that you're completely overlooking how the system actually works.
Lmao- or maybe you're so intent on believing that "the system" hasn't been hijacked by 'conservative' activist justices, that you're failing to see that the outcomes are whatever/whenever suits their base political desires.
If you honestly think that thomas, alito, et al. would be treating this case the same if it was Biden arguing for immunity, then I've got a blind Lady Justice statue to sell you. 😂
@Incognitim and maybe I also haven't believed flat earthers pointing out that the Illuminati controls the world?
No, it's not that I'm so intense on believing that the system hasn't been hijacked. It's that I hear the conspiracy theorists drop their conspiracy theories, but I actually read what comes out of the court and see that those extreme claims just don't hold up to the facts.
I'm sorry if you have fallen for the conspiracy theories, but come on, read the public record, it debunks all of that nonsense.
@volkris
You: "I keep hearing how super complex this is from conservative justices, anyone who thinks this is a political move to push back Trump's trial till after the election is a fLaT EaRtHeR!"
People who aren't fucking idiots: "These justices have repeatedly lied about everything from their dark money donors to their judicial 'philosophies' (textualism/originalism, stare decisis, unitary executive, recusal...)
Look at their actions, and their effects, not just their words. Use your brain."
This, and previous, iterations of the court have settled matters expediently when the felt the need. Trying to solve every potential abstract hypothetical in a case that is clearly and concretely defined, with a maximal degree of public interest and a minimal threshold of time, is a smokescreen, and NOT what the court agreed to hear.
@volkris
"Come on, read the public record." Pull your head out of the sand and check out the *concurring* opinions from Colorado's ballot case, or the MYRIAD other cases in which the Supreme Court has limited its ruling to the "cases and controversies" at hand.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
@Incognitim I mean right! The concurring opinions dispute your position!
Yes! Pull your head out of the sand and stop promoting these conspiracy theories that just don't match reality.
@volkris
Aaah- NOW I see what the issue is: you have reading comprehension issues!
Maybe it's from burying your head in the sand, or maybe you've just had your head up your ass this whole time...or maybe it's been up Clarence Thomas's, you seem to really appreciate the smell of his shit! 😂🤣😂🤣😂
@volkris
Ha- yeah, I understand that.
I'm referring to the respective outcomes of potentially delaying both trials until after the election.