• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in Mar-a-Lago search case

devildavid said:
What law is Trump asking the SC to follow?
Click to expand...
That's a very good question. Certainly not any recognized legal precedents or black letter law. But, he's never really cottoned to that stuff anyway.
 
Last edited:
devildavid said:
What does that law state?
Click to expand...
Essentially that our system disfavors piecemeal litigation - specifically appeals in the middle of a litigation - get a bad ruling appeal, get another bad ruling, appeal again ... and so on.

If you're interested, here's their brief.

www.cnn.com

READ: Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in dispute over Mar-a-Lago search and seizure of documents | CNN Politics

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the dispute over materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate this summer. Read the filing here.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
 
Rawley said:
Essentially that our system disfavors piecemeal litigation - specifically appeals in the middle of a litigation - get a bad ruling appeal, get another bad ruling, appeal again ... and so on.

If you're interested, here's their brief.

www.cnn.com

READ: Trump asks Supreme Court to intervene in dispute over Mar-a-Lago search and seizure of documents | CNN Politics

Former President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the dispute over materials the FBI seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate this summer. Read the filing here.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

So why is Trump doing something disfavored by our system?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Yesterday was the 134th anniversary of the first recorded instance in major league baseball (when Ed Crane of the New York Gothams (now NY Giants) did it in the 5th inning against the Chicago White Stockings (now Chicago White Sox).

No one has managed five in one inning in MLB, but it did happen in 2016 in a minor league game (although I don't know the date or name of the teams).
Click to expand...
As an historical note. Cal Raleigh was saved on a 3-2 pitch when the catcher dropped the pitch. He then went on to hit the game-winning HR that sent the Mariners to the post-season for the first time since 2001.
 
The AntiDonald said:
First of all, it's a six-judge majority. Second of all, this is all about national security. No judge is going to defer to Trump over national security when Trump is no longer the executive. All he is now, is an American citizen who lies about everything.

The court won't take the case. It's over before it starts.
Click to expand...

Never underestimate the perspicacity of Clarence!
 
devildavid said:
So why is Trump doing something disfavored by our system?
Click to expand...
The appeal to the 11th circuit already happened. Read his brief, it explains it well.
 
devildavid said:
So why do something disfavored by our system?
Click to expand...
See? I can explain in about 7 posts or 3 pages why the Petition is completely without merit, or simply state that, in my professional opinion, it's full of hot air and very poorly argued. Unless, of course, you are a Trump sycophant.
 
devildavid said:
His brief argues that it is something disfavored by our system?
Click to expand...
intentional obtuseness is not an attractive quality.

Have a nice day.
 
BitterPill said:
This is why our five MAGA justice majority on our Supreme Court matters so much.

Trump truly is genius.

MAGA.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's a good idea to appoint the courts with loyalists? Should Presidents choose SC Judges? Doesn't seem to be in the interests of the country to do so anymore. Especially when everyone lies. What if we let the SC Judges pick any new members?
 
Donatello said:
Do you think it's a good idea to appoint the courts with loyalists? Should Presidents choose SC Judges? Doesn't seem to be in the interests of the country to do so anymore. Especially when everyone lies. What if we let the SC Judges pick any new members?
Click to expand...
Not the current slate.
 
Donatello said:
Do you think it's a good idea to appoint the courts with loyalists? Should Presidents choose SC Judges? Doesn't seem to be in the interests of the country to do so anymore. Especially when everyone lies. What if we let the SC Judges pick any new members?
Click to expand...
Pick better presidents.
 
NWRatCon said:
Not the current slate.
Click to expand...
You might find "Supreme Court of Canada Appointment Process" (and, in particular, "Qualifications and Assessment Criteria") to be of interest.

For some reason I think that an assessment/appointment process that places reliance on
​
Personal Skills and Experience​
1. Demonstrated superior knowledge of the law.​
2. Superior analytical skills.​
3. Ability to resolve complex legal problems​
4. Awareness of, and ability to synthesize information about, the social context in which legal disputes arise.​
5. Clarity of thought, particularly as demonstrated through written expression.​
6. Ability to work under significant time pressures requiring diligent review of voluminous materials in any area of law.​
7. Commitment to public service​

Personal Qualities​
1. Irreproachable personal and professional integrity.​
2. Respect and consideration for others.​
3. Ability to appreciate a diversity of views, perspectives and life experiences, including those relating to groups historically disadvantaged in American society.​
4. Moral courage​
5. Discretion​
6. Open-mindedness​

Institutional Needs of the Court​
1. Ensuring a reasonable balance between public and private law expertise, bearing in mind the historic patterns of distribution between those areas in Supreme Court appeals.​
2. Expertise in any specific subject matter that regularly features in appeals and is currently underrepresented on the Court​
3. Ensuring that the members of the Supreme Court are reasonably reflective of the diversity of American society.​


would be a "slight" improvement on one that places reliance on:
​
Political Reliability​
1. Will always vote the way the appointing political party wants regardless of fact, law, tradition, will of the country's people, or any other factor​

Personal Skills and Experience​
1. Irrelevant provided that "Political Reliability" criterion is met.​

Personal Qualities​
1. Irrelevant provided that "Political Reliability" criterion is met.​

Institutional Needs of the Court​
1. Irrelevant provided that "Political Reliability" criterion is met.​


but, I do realize that some people will not agree with me.
 
jpevans said:
Pick better presidents.
Click to expand...
Until the general populace has some realistic say in the selection of the people who might become the candidates are, the system isn't going to change significantly.

Roughly 54% of all Americans will admit to belonging to a political party (what the percentage of the 43% of the total population who say that they do not but who aren't actually telling the truth is, is unknown). Those (roughly) 181,105,125 people have next to no say in selecting the people who might become candidates for the political party they belong to. In fact, in some states of the US, the people who do NOT belong to "Party A" (and who might, in fact, belong to "Party B") have a voice is choosing who the candidate for "Party A" will be (but they still get to pick from a list that they had next to no say in creating).

Approximately 0.167% of all Canadians actually belong to a political party and it is those (roughly) 649,985 people who actually do select the people who might become candidates for the political party they belong to. In Canada, the people who do NOT belong to "Party A" have no say in choosing who the candidate for "Party A" will be.

For some reason the Canadian system of selecting candidates seems to make more sense to me than the American system - but I do realize that not everyone will agree with me.
 
Popcorn ?



"..ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (S.D. Fla.): Trump v. United States, No. 22-cv-81294 (Sept. 5, 2022) (order granting preliminary injunction and providing that a special master shall be appointed)

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332 (Aug. 5, 2022) (issuing search warrant) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.):

Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005 (Sept. 21, 2022) (granting partial stay)

....RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION TO VACATE IN PART THE PARTIAL STAY ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________ The Solicitor General respectfully files this response in opposition to the application for a partial vacatur of the Eleventh Circuit’s order partially staying the September 5, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This application concerns an unprecedented order by the district court restricting the Executive Branch’s use of its own highly classified records in an ongoing criminal investigation and directing the dissemination of those records outside the Executive Branch for a special-master review. In August 2022, the government obtained a warrant to search the residence of applicant, former President Donald J. Trump, based on a judicial finding of probable cause to believe that the search would reveal evidence of crimes, including wrongful retention of documents and information relating to the national defense as well as obstruction of justice. Among
(1)

other evidence, the search recovered roughly 100 records bearing classification markings, including markings reflecting the highest levels of classification and extremely restricted distribution. Two weeks later, applicant filed this civil action seeking the appointment of a special master to review the seized materials for claims of privilege or return of property and an injunction barring the government from continuing to use those materials during that review process. District courts have no general equitable authority to superintend federal criminal investigations; instead, challenges to the government’s use of the evidence recovered in a search are ordinarily resolved through criminal motions practice if and when charges are filed. Here, however, the district court granted the extraordinary relief applicant sought, ordering that a “special master shall be APPOINTED to review the seized property” and enjoining further review or use of any seized materials “for criminal investigative purposes” pending the special-master process, which will last months. Appl. for Partial Vacatur App. (App.) B at 23.1 Although the government believes the district court fundamentally erred in appointing a special master and granting injunctive relief at all -- and is appealing the court’s September 5

1 The appendix to the application is divided into seven lettered sections but not consecutively paginated. This response cites the appendix using the relevant section designation and the internal pagination of the documents contained in that section.
(2)

order in its entirety on an expedited basis -- the government sought only a partial stay of the portions of that order that caused the most serious and immediate harm to the United States and the public by “enjoin[ing] the government’s use of the classified documents and requir[ing] the government to submit the classified documents to the special master for review.” App. A at 29. The court of appeals granted that modest relief, holding that “the United States is substantially likely to succeed in showing that the district court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction over [applicant’s] motion as it concerns the classified documents” and that all of the equitable factors favored a partial stay. Id. at 22; see id. at 15-29. In this Court, applicant does not challenge the stay insofar as it reinstates the government’s authority to use the documents bearing classification markings in its ongoing criminal investigation. Applicant instead seeks to partially vacate the stay to the extent it precludes dissemination and review of those documents in the special-master proceedings. Applicant is not entitled to that relief for multiple independent reasons. Most notably, applicant has not even attempted to explain how he is irreparably injured by the court of appeals’ partial stay, which simply prevents disclosure of the documents bearing classification markings in the special-master review during the pendency of the government’s expedited appeal. Applicant’s inability to
(3)

demonstrate irreparable injury ..."
 
Last edited:
post said:
Popcorn ?



"..ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (S.D. Fla.): Trump v. United States, No. 22-cv-81294 (Sept. 5, 2022) (order granting preliminary injunction and providing that a special master shall be appointed)

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332 (Aug. 5, 2022) (issuing search warrant) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.):

Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005 (Sept. 21, 2022) (granting partial stay)

[DELETED BECAUSE OF FORUM CHARACTER LIMITS]

demonstrate irreparable injury ..."
Click to expand...

Not only is there no demonstrable irreparable injury, but the order that Mr. Trump wants gutted is the one that he asked be made - thus demonstrating the old adage "Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.".

Another that is applicable is "If you insist on playing by the rules, make sure that you know what ALL the rules are.".
 
post said:
Popcorn ?



"..ADDITIONAL RELATED PROCEEDINGS United States District Court (S.D. Fla.): Trump v. United States, No. 22-cv-81294 (Sept. 5, 2022) (order granting preliminary injunction and providing that a special master shall be appointed)

United States v. Sealed Search Warrant, No. 22-mj-8332 (Aug. 5, 2022) (issuing search warrant) United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.):

Trump v. United States, No. 22-13005 (Sept. 21, 2022) (granting partial stay)

....RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION TO VACATE IN PART THE PARTIAL STAY ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _______________ The Solicitor General respectfully files this response in opposition to the application for a partial vacatur of the Eleventh Circuit’s order partially staying the September 5, 2022 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This application concerns an unprecedented order by the district court restricting the Executive Branch’s use of its own highly classified records in an ongoing criminal investigation and directing the dissemination of those records outside the Executive Branch for a special-master review. In August 2022, the government obtained a warrant to search the residence of applicant, former President Donald J. Trump, based on a judicial finding of probable cause to believe that the search would reveal evidence of crimes, including wrongful retention of documents and information relating to the national defense as well as obstruction of justice. Among
(1)

other evidence, the search recovered roughly 100 records bearing classification markings, including markings reflecting the highest levels of classification and extremely restricted distribution. Two weeks later, applicant filed this civil action seeking the appointment of a special master to review the seized materials for claims of privilege or return of property and an injunction barring the government from continuing to use those materials during that review process. District courts have no general equitable authority to superintend federal criminal investigations; instead, challenges to the government’s use of the evidence recovered in a search are ordinarily resolved through criminal motions practice if and when charges are filed. Here, however, the district court granted the extraordinary relief applicant sought, ordering that a “special master shall be APPOINTED to review the seized property” and enjoining further review or use of any seized materials “for criminal investigative purposes” pending the special-master process, which will last months. Appl. for Partial Vacatur App. (App.) B at 23.1 Although the government believes the district court fundamentally erred in appointing a special master and granting injunctive relief at all -- and is appealing the court’s September 5

1 The appendix to the application is divided into seven lettered sections but not consecutively paginated. This response cites the appendix using the relevant section designation and the internal pagination of the documents contained in that section.
(2)

….
Click to expand...

www.theatlantic.com

The Inevitable Indictment of Donald Trump

Merrick Garland hasn’t tipped his hand, but it’s clear to me that he will bring charges against the former president.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom