• aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Now we just gotta wait for the inevitable stupid appeal to SCOTUS, and have it done with.

    I believe he can request an en banc hearing (a hearing in front of all the circuit judges, as opposed to a three-judge panel), which he definitely will, because it will delay the proceedings further.

    • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      He can request it, but the good thing about those is the appeals court can deny the request. He can appeal to the Supreme Court and they could either deny it or take it up to smack down the argument. If they side with his argument the country is over (along with all of the court’s own power) as they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        they would have ruled that the President is functionally an absolute monarch.

        And then Dark Brandon activates Seal Team Six for elephant hunting season.

    • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      The three judge panel anticipated that these arguments are primarily delay tactics. They have said in the decision they will stay their ruling only for an appeal accepted directly to the supreme court. If he appeals to the en banc panel first, then the trial can go ahead while that appeal plays out, so it can’t be used as a delay tactic. Only the Supreme Court can delay it further now.

      • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        I assume that certain elements on the Supreme Court will attempt to delay it (Thomas, Alito, and probably Gorsuch, I’m looking at you). How much can they realistically delay the trial?

        • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          IIRC it takes 4 of them to agree to take up a case. If they did they could decide to fast track it which who knows how much that would delay the trial. Weeks or a couple months.

          If they tried to put it on their regular schedule who knows when you’d even have a ruling as the court typically goes into recess at the end of June and doesn’t come back until October.

          • ctkatz@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            9 months ago

            if 4 of them decide to take the appeal, I suspect the other 5 would make it an expedited schedule to not delay the trial even more.

            also keep in mind, this thursday scotus is hearing the colorado 14th amendment case and the deadline for this appeal is monday. I really don’t think scotus is going to destroy the little credibility they have with the 14th amendment case and then completely end their relevance by taking this appeal since the only logical reason they would take the appeal would be to overturn the decision.

        • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          They could potentially accept an appeal and wait to hear it until next Fall and then not rule on it until after the election, if they’re so inclined, unfortunately. That would mean if Trump was elected he could try and nullify it by self pardoning or ordering his attorney general to drop the charges (not supposed to do that, but it hasn’t stopped Trump from trying to directly order around his attorney general before).

          The supreme court could choose to hear it quicker, or they could just deny the appeal outright without hearing the case. Though all it takes is four justices want to hear it for the appeal to be accepted.

          • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            First of all nobody should accept a self-pardon as legitimate.

            But beyond that, the 14A says how someone can regain their eligibility to hold office, and a pardon isn’t listed as an option. If anything, accepting a pardon would cement his ineligibility because it’s an admission of guilt.

            • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              Oh I’m not saying to accept it, I think it’s totally illegitimate. I’m just saying what I think he will do if elected. More likely he just appoints some stooge as attorney general who orders the charges be dropped though.

    • kescusay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 months ago

      Hopefully, the court will deny the request with prejudice. It’s such a goddamn dumb argument.