News Trump: Mar-a-Lago just raided by FBI

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

It's even funnier when Donny's Judges swat him on the nose.

"The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, U.S. Circuit Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher, as well as Chief Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a George H.W. Bush appointee."

Appeals court halts special master review of Trump Mar-a-Lago records

An 11th Circuit panel removed a major obstacle in the Justice Department’s investigation into the potential mishandling of classified records.

www.courthousenews.com

.

 

[QueBert]

It's even funnier when Donny's Judges swat him on the nose.

"The panel included two Trump-appointed judges, U.S. Circuit Judges Britt Grant and Andrew Brasher, as well as Chief Circuit Judge Bill Pryor, a George H.W. Bush appointee."

Appeals court halts special master review of Trump Mar-a-Lago records

An 11th Circuit panel removed a major obstacle in the Justice Department’s investigation into the potential mishandling of classified records.

www.courthousenews.com

.

Those fuckin no good back stabbing traitors! I wonder if they understand that in 2024 when he's reelected they'll be sent packing. (not my words, MAGAers)

 

[you2]

And in tangent news a federal judge sez Pat Cipollone has to speak to Grand Jury rejecting Trump claims of executive privs:

First on CNN: Federal judge orders former top lawyers in Trump's White House to testify in criminal grand jury probe | CNN Politics

A federal judge rejected former President Donald Trump's privilege claims

www.cnn.com

Guess we will hear of new ravings by Trump that judges refuse to grant him special privs to do as he pleases....

 

[eelw]

This is one where overturning on Appeal is not enough. This Judge needs to be formally sanctioned, if not removed.

Depends on if any other pressing matters, but yeah I see the senate judicial committee bringing her in for a hearing. Sadly won’t get 2/3rd to impeach and remove.

 

[hal2kilo]

Depends on if any other pressing matters, but yeah I see the senate judicial committee bringing her in for a hearing. Sadly won’t get 2/3rd to impeach and remove.

Can that be done with separation of powers?

 

[Pens1566]

Can that be done with separation of powers?

Judicial impeachment would be the only check/balance at this point.

 

[you2]

Judicial impeachment would be the only check/balance at this point.

Which is a real problem. Er the problem is that with the current rules a simple majority and put a political judge in place (which is not the same as a conservative or liberal judge) but to remove them you either need a super majority in the senate (which hasn't happen in a long time) or both parties to look at things objectively.

While we may favor liberal or conservative judges; political judges do nothing but tarnish the system.

 

[fskimospy]

Which is a real problem. Er the problem is that with the current rules a simple majority and put a political judge in place (which is not the same as a conservative or liberal judge) but to remove them you either need a super majority in the senate (which hasn't happen in a long time) or both parties to look at things objectively.

While we may favor liberal or conservative judges; political judges do nothing but tarnish the system.

Or just pack the courts.

 

[Pens1566]

Which is a real problem. Er the problem is that with the current rules a simple majority and put a political judge in place (which is not the same as a conservative or liberal judge) but to remove them you either need a super majority in the senate (which hasn't happen in a long time) or both parties to look at things objectively.

While we may favor liberal or conservative judges; political judges do nothing but tarnish the system.

Correct. You have to fix one or the other. Make the confirmation more than just a formality, or make it a more realistic option to actually remove someone when it's warranted. An example would be that if the ABA rates someone too low, they're auto DQ'd from the nomination process. You reinstate the filibuster for judicial noms (or increase the required margin if filibuster gets nuked). The first should be less controversial but the brain dead right would bitch and moan that their noms would be unevenly impacted.

Or you can do both in some form as part of judicial reforms/modernization.

 

[you2]

Or just pack the courts.

Packing doesn't work because it becomes an endless process between two parties; and it doesn't prevent these new judges from being 'political' judges and making things worse.

 

[woolfe9998]

deleted, decided to give it its own thread

 

[ch33zw1z]

Packing doesn't work because it becomes an endless process between two parties; and it doesn't prevent these new judges from being 'political' judges and making things worse.

that’s cool, while the GOP does it, we can debate the finer points of how it will work

 

[Tsinni Dave]

I watched a CBC Fifth Estate program on the security implications to Canada of the stolen documents, and their conclusion was that the more sensitive the files he stole were the less chance there is of conviction as the files will have to be used as evidence and there is zero chance that those documents will ever be allowed to be used as evidence in a court room. I hope they are wrong.

The summary starts at 39:30 ish.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman says "This man is a threat to the way we exist because what we have in our democracy is a rules based system, and he has complete diregard for all of them. Donald Trump, if he is to survive and somehow get re-elected, that is the greatest threat to the Canada / U.S. relationship as we've ever known it, and we're going to see the extreme of himself."

 

[fskimospy]

Packing doesn't work because it becomes an endless process between two parties; and it doesn't prevent these new judges from being 'political' judges and making things worse.

It would totally work because it reduces the power of the judicial branch, which is totally out of control.

 

[uclaLabrat]

It would totally work because it reduces the power of the judicial branch, which is totally out of control.

Even if you only expanded it to 13, assuming a 40 year career on the bench, youre averaging a justice retiring or dying every 3 years, which keeps these blocks of stagnation minimized and refreshing the political makeup of the court.

I think its a great idea.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if you only expanded it to 13, assuming a 40 year career on the bench, youre averaging a justice retiring or dying every 3 years, which keeps these blocks of stagnation minimized and refreshing the political makeup of the court.

I think its a great idea.

I would expand it to like 51. We need to get rid of these high stakes judicial appointments.

edit: or like 101. Who cares. The salaries are trivial.

 

[Fenixgoon]

I watched a CBC Fifth Estate program on the security implications to Canada of the stolen documents, and their conclusion was that the more sensitive the files he stole were the less chance there is of conviction as the files will have to be used as evidence and there is zero chance that those documents will ever be allowed to be used as evidence in a court room. I hope they are wrong.

The summary starts at 39:30 ish.
Former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman says "This man is a threat to the way we exist because what we have in our democracy is a rules based system, and he has complete diregard for all of them. Donald Trump, if he is to survive and somehow get re-elected, that is the greatest threat to the Canada / U.S. relationship as we've ever known it, and we're going to see the extreme of himself."

That makes no sense. You wouldn't even have to show the content of the document. You could blank it all out except "CLASSIFIED" and maybe a document number or something.
The case should be trivial.

 

[Greenman]

I would expand it to like 51. We need to get rid of these high stakes judicial appointments.

edit: or like 101. Who cares. The salaries are trivial.

Why not set it up the same as congress and give each district there own judge?
It's very short sighted solution to the issue, and ends up exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.

 

[Pens1566]

Why not set it up the same as congress and give each district there own judge?
It's very short sighted solution to the issue, and ends up exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.

It has worked that way in the past, only according to the federal circuits and not voting districts (they're locally determined). There were 9 circuits, so 9 justices. One for each circuit. Then we upped the # of circuits to 13 and simply double-booked some of the justices to more than one district.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not set it up the same as congress and give each district there own judge?
It's very short sighted solution to the issue, and ends up exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.

No, this actually solves the issue. And sure, 500 justices is fine too. People who think expanding the court leads to counter-expansions are being short sighted while I’m playing the long game.

Court expansion accomplishes two important things. First, it returns the constitutional balance of power to its historical place - the current judiciary is out of control. Second, the more justices the merrier as it removes high stakes judicial confirmations. If someone is one of nine that’s a big deal. One of 500? Not so much.

If someone has a better idea I’m open to it but as far as I can see people opposed to expanding the courts mostly think the answer is to sit around and pray this works itself out, which is not an answer.

 

[VRAMdemon]

I'm wondering: What’s to prevent Trump from going back to Cannon’s court, starting a new action, and getting a favorable ruling that forces the DOJ to follow a whole new appeal-and-overturn process? Even if the smackdowns start coming faster than the few months this one took, is there any reason Trump’s team can’t ride that carousel forever and drag things out for years? Is there any established legal mechanism by which Cannon can pre-emptively be excluded from any further involvement?

I’m not proposing that Cannon could re-issue the same ruling that was overturned, in direct opposition to the higher court; I’m imagining that Trump’s team offers a new rhetorical hook on which to hang a new order with a superficially different basis but with, of course, the same underlying effect. I'm going to accept that Trump will utilize any and every mechanism he has available to delay these proceedings. It’s the only strategy he has, really. This appears to be a slam-dunk case. The only wrinkle is that it’s being brought against a former president.

I'm assuming Trump may petition the Eleventh to sit en banc to review the ruling of the 3-member panel that ruled per curiam (decision not signed by any judge but agreed to by all). It would be ridiculous for him to do that since the chief judge of the Eleventh, William Pryor, sat on that 3-member panel. But that’s never stopped Trump before. He will also likely appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS as another way to delay.

There may also come a time when the courts formally recognize the stalling tactics and impose penalties for Trump’s ongoing filings of frivolous lawsuits. Penalties can be quite expensive, since they are meant to be punitive. I’m not counting much on this happening, though. Because this is the first legal proceeding of its kind to contemplate charging a former president with serious crimes, there will be lots of opportunities to test the law.

 

[Pens1566]

I'm wondering: What’s to prevent Trump from going back to Cannon’s court, starting a new action, and getting a favorable ruling that forces the DOJ to follow a whole new appeal-and-overturn process? Even if the smackdowns start coming faster than the few months this one took, is there any reason Trump’s team can’t ride that carousel forever and drag things out for years? Is there any established legal mechanism by which Cannon can pre-emptively be excluded from any further involvement?

I’m not proposing that Cannon could re-issue the same ruling that was overturned, in direct opposition to the higher court; I’m imagining that Trump’s team offers a new rhetorical hook on which to hang a new order with a superficially different basis but with, of course, the same underlying effect. I'm going to accept that Trump will utilize any and every mechanism he has available to delay these proceedings. It’s the only strategy he has, really. This appears to be a slam-dunk case. The only wrinkle is that it’s being brought against a former president.

I'm assuming Trump may petition the Eleventh to sit en banc to review the ruling of the 3-member panel that ruled per curiam (decision not signed by any judge but agreed to by all). It would be ridiculous for him to do that since the chief judge of the Eleventh, William Pryor, sat on that 3-member panel. But that’s never stopped Trump before. He will also likely appeal the ruling to the SCOTUS as another way to delay.

There may also come a time when the courts formally recognize the stalling tactics and impose penalties for Trump’s ongoing filings of frivolous lawsuits. Penalties can be quite expensive, since they are meant to be punitive. I’m not counting much on this happening, though. Because this is the first legal proceeding of its kind to contemplate charging a former president with serious crimes, there will be lots of opportunities to test the law.

IANAL, but rule 11 consequences for one. But those are generally few and far between, with usually less than impressive penalties.

I'd say "shame within the legal community" as well, but that's already demonstrably out the window based on the lawyers that TFG has employed in any of his numerous dubious legal challenges to any # of cases.

Practically? Not much really.

 

[Greenman]

No, this actually solves the issue. And sure, 500 justices is fine too. People who think expanding the court leads to counter-expansions are being short sighted while I’m playing the long game.

Court expansion accomplishes two important things. First, it returns the constitutional balance of power to its historical place - the current judiciary is out of control. Second, the more justices the merrier as it removes high stakes judicial confirmations. If someone is one of nine that’s a big deal. One of 500? Not so much.

If someone has a better idea I’m open to it but as far as I can see people opposed to expanding the courts mostly think the answer is to sit around and pray this works itself out, which is not an answer.

It still becomes a straight up political appointment controlled by whoever has the majority. We need a way to get the court beyond that. I don't care who is running the show this year or next, I want the court to rule based on the constitution. That's their job and I want them to do it. They tossed Roe back to the states which was a crappy decision, but it was a constitutional decision, so it was the right decision.
If the constitution needs to change there are mechanisms for doing that, the supreme court isn't one of them.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ I've outlined that several times.

13 seats, one for each Federal Circuit. NO permanent seats/Justices. Each session gets Justices selected at random, one from each Circuit. No one sits on two consecutive sessions and all are automatically recused from hearing cases they presided over at the Circuit level.

Politics at the top level are gone since assignments are random.

Undoing Politics a the Circuit or below is another matter. The entire selection and nomination process would need to be reworked.

 

[VRAMdemon]

IANAL, but rule 11 consequences for one. But those are generally few and far between, with usually less than impressive penalties.

I'd say "shame within the legal community" as well, but that's already demonstrably out the window based on the lawyers that TFG has employed in any of his numerous dubious legal challenges to any # of cases.

Practically? Not much really.

I'm hoping the courts will tire of this nonsense. Trump's lawyers know such proceedings make them look terrible. Lawyers may decline to pursue no-hope actions. Rulings could come quicker. All these courts can move quite fast when they want to.

You won’t see the real delays commence until after an indictment falls. I mean, unless Trump is remanded to custody without bail. Sitting in jail does tend to focus the mind on the importance of the right to a speedy trial. I know this scenario is highly unlikely to happen, but it would be highly amusing if that happened and then the courts decided to let all these delay tactics play out. Sorry Mr Trump, you had requested we move the deadline to respond to (something) out 3 months, so just sit tight buddy, we have to wait to see if you respond, then the prosecutors have 30 days to respond to that, etc. etc. I mean, all Trump would have to do is answer no, and the hearings would be expedited to comply with statutory requirements for speedy justice, I'm assuming.