Donald Trump opposes the special counsel’s request for the Supreme Court to decide right now whether he has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office, lawyers for the former president told the justices in court papers Wednesday.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked the high court last week to review a lower-court ruling that Trump, as a former president, is not immune from the election subversion criminal case. Smith in his appeal to the justices asked them to take the rare step of reviewing the issue before a federal appeals court in Washington, DC, weighs in.
But Trump, whose legal strategy in the case so far has largely revolved around attempts to delay the proceedings, told the justices that Smith should not be able to leapfrog over the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to resolve the critical issue.
I really appreciate this exchange. Someone casually makes a claim, someone else requests sources, and the original poster took the time to respond and detail where they heard the info. Great job on all of you. Now I’ll try to add to the conversation.
IANAL but it looks like it’s a defendant’s right. It’s origins seem to be about protecting a defendant from a never-ending or egregiously drawn out prosecution. I think it’s fair to say that it gives both sides tools in this case. It seems pretty obvious to me that the defendant here (orange man) wants to delay and would maybe even decline his right to a speedy trial if offered the choice. Meanwhile the prosecution can press the judges to keep things moving by pointing out that they (the prosecutors and judges) are legally obligated to give the defendant a speedy trial.
and sources:
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/right-to-a-speedy-trial/
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt6-2-1/ALDE_00012979/
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/VB4.htm
I appreciate the positive response, but I have to strongly disagree and point out how this is a thing that is so bothersome with lemmy (and reddit as well).
As you said, someone just casually made a claim. If one has anything more than the most basic education about the COTUs, they would know it was intended to put restrictions on the federal government, not restrictions on individuals. So the argument that this was also supposed to restrict the individual doesn’t even remotely pass the sniff test.
They were unanimously upvoted. At this point, it’s still unanimous. All because it’s what people want to be true in this case. Including myself.
A poster asked them to cite the claim that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Met with twice as many downvotes as upvotes. A reasonable question, 100% more downvotes than upvotes.
Their response is nothing more than “I heard it somewhere from a source that knows what they are talking about.” Almost literally it’s that vague.
They were unanimously upvoted. Again. For what is effectively nothing. All because it’s what people want to be true.
It was a garbage and (I believe) ignorant claim, which you seem to have figured out, and it was universally accepted. It was a reasonable question, which was punished with downvotes. And their response to the question was absolutely nothing, and it was universally accepted.
This is not how it should work. I would argue it’s the exact opposite of how it should work.
Thank you for posting this. These are the kinds of comments that we need more of on the internet. Ones that aren’t afraid to push back on the errors of the hivemind, however justified the sentiment may be.
We both know the question was very much in bad faith. Write all the novels you want and that won’t change
It’s can only be obviously bad faith if you recognize the claim is obviously bs.
But I don’t know it was bad faith. It could be, or it could be a genuine question because it clashes with what they believe to be true, or it could be that they know the claim is false and they are trying to let the poster come to the conclusion on their own.
You’re confusing your desire for it to be bad faith, justifying your down voting, with knowing it to be.
You’re willing to go far on a limb for this unlikely scenario, and I think a lot of people can guess why
What is the unlikely scenario you’re referring to? As far as I can tell, his assessment of the situation is correct. I’m not sure why you’re so sure that the question was in bad faith.
Can’t debate the point, so throw out unsubstantiated accusations. Seems the empty ad hominem is your MO.
I don’t argue with morons anymore, just call them
How was it bad faith? The poster I was responding to was simply wrong
Beyond the defendant’s right, its more an observation that justice delayed unduly is justice denied