"The Special Counsel, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21, for expedited consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, filed today, in this case.* The Special Counsel further moves for expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition."
Doesn't sound at all like you portray it, but then again you believe Trump's shit not only doesn't stink, but that it comes out in rainbows.
As we tell people to read the indictments when they spew nonsense, we ask you to read what Smith is actually saying and try and comprehend it.
On Dec. 11, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court requesting the Court resolve the question of whether former president Donald Trump is immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office. The Justice Department is seeking to bypass the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, filing the petition before that court has ruled. The government also filed a motion for expedited consideration of the petition by the Supreme Court and an “expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition.” Additionally, the Justice Department filed a motion to expedite Trump's appeal of Judge Chutkan’s ruling in the D.C. Circuit. On Dec. 1, Judge Chutkan rejected Trump’s motion to dismiss the federal election interference case against him on the grounds of presidential immunity. Trump filed an appeal of her ruling in the D.C. Circuit on Dec. 7.
"The Special Counsel, on behalf of the United States, respectfully moves, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21, for expedited consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment, filed today, in this case.* The Special Counsel further moves for expedited merits briefing if the Court grants the petition."
Doesn't sound at all like you portray it, but then again you believe Trump's shit not only doesn't stink, but that it comes out in rainbows.
The reason I link to things you claim you all know, is because your claims seem false when facts are in -- as with Trump's claims.
Smith knows not to ask for one, since he would not get a hearing. Jack Smith is not asking for one. I listed what he has sent over to the Court. You and others of your ilk have a habit of ignoring things and making believe they just go away.
No. XX-XX
In the Supreme Court of the United States
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP
ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
BEFORE JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _______________ No. 23- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. DONALD J. TRUMP _______________ ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT _______________ MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT AND FOR EXPEDITED MERITS BRIEFING IF THE COURT GRANTS THE PETITION
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
______________
No. 23-3228
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant-Appellant
______________
GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION
FOR EXPEDITED APPELLATE REVIEW
Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?
Where oh where is there an asking for an advisory opinion?
advisory opinion
Primary tabs
An advisory opinion is a court's nonbinding interpretation of law. It states the opinion of a court upon a legal question submitted by a legislature, government official, or another court. Parties seeking advisory opinions tend to do so to better understand their odds of winning a potential lawsuit before risking the expensive process of litigation.
Federal courts cannot issue advisory opinions because of the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement.
State courts are not subject to the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement and are therefore free to issue advisory opinions so long as their state constitutions allow. See, for example, the advisory opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding civil unions.
On February 3, 2004, the Justices submitted the following answer to a question propounded to them by the Senate.
To the Honorable the Senate of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
The undersigned Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court respectfully submit their answers to the question set forth in an order adopted by the Senate on December 11, 2003, and transmitted to the Justices on December 12, 2003. The order indicates that there is pending before the General Court a bill, Senate No. 2175, entitled "An Act relative to civil unions." A copy of the bill was transmitted with the order. As we describe more fully below, the bill adds G. L. c. 207A to the General Laws, which provides for the establishment of "civil unions" for same-sex "spouses," provided the individuals meet certain qualifications described in the bill. [Note 1]
The order indicates that grave doubt exists as to the constitutionality of the bill if enacted into law and requests the opinions of the Justices on the following "important question of law":
"Does Senate, No. 2175, which prohibits same-sex couples from entering into marriage...
Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.
truthsocial.com
I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.
Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.
It might actually be expeditious. But I wouldn’t deem it “prudent.”
OTOH, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.
I’m merely expressing my doubt that it’s a proper thing to do.
If SCOTUS grants the writ, agreeing to decide, one of two things is likely:
They will say it’s okey dokey to proceed to a trial OR they will say that, under these circumstances, the trial can’t proceed.
I’m not sure why they’d bother when ordinary practice would have them refrain from offering any advisory opinion, like that; and they could simply await the outcome of the trial(s) and any ensuing appeals for the issues to fully “ripen.”
Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.
truthsocial.com
I’m shocked. Imagine asking the SCOTUS for what amounts to an advisory opinion.
Our courts don’t render advisory opinions. So, I expect the SCOTUS to take a pass on accepting the Special Persecutor’s “motion.” But, even so, maybe the guy is finally starting to dimly grasp that what he’s doing is improper.
The reason I link to things you claim you all know, is because your claims seem false when facts are in -- as with Trump's claims.
Smith knows not to ask for one, since he would not get a hearing. Jack Smith is not asking for one. I listed what he has sent over to the Court. You and others of your ilk have a habit of ignoring things and making believe they just go away.
When you link to anything we all claim to know let me know.
But that’s not at all what you do.
You happen not to agree with a line of speculation. That’s fine. As I already noted, ultimately the court itself could disagree. But your disagreement isn’t the same as what you claim I said in the first place.
Again, I don’t believe I ever said that Smith asked for a hearing. He filed a cert application. He’s allowed to do so. And if they reject it in January, so what? That doesn’t mean that Smith wasn’t allowed to ask.
By the way, I never argued that being President gives one absolute immunity. That is a line of legal argument — but not one I happen to agree with.
The answer to that alleged question doesn’t require attention at this stage. And there’s no reason to believe that the SCOTUS would grant a Trump request for a stay before trial to address that issue from the defense side. Again, there is no reason for the SCOTUS to address this until it comes to them in due course after trial, conviction and the usual appellate process.
www.lawfaremedia.org
