I think Cmey Barrett just wanted a record to be perfected so the appeal could be undertaken. Stepping in at the 23rd hour looks as political as the underlying fake charges. So I agree with her decision. It will be reversed. Just let the system play out. My 2 cents.
The problem is that, even if it were as you say, and we obviously can't read her mind, the decision would still be based on extraneous factors rather than on the law itself, which is 100% clear in this instance.
We all agree there was no crime. But they cannot adjudicate the appellate process without having the record perfected. Trust me. I should know. I worked for trial attorneys for better part of 25 years. Lots of trial and appellate work. You read too much into that. She didn't want to have this political. She wanted a record perfected so she can give us the 1 word order that says REVERSED. We can only hope for such brevity.
Just to be clear they adjudicate the appeal. I was just referring to perfecting the record as an integral part of the process. This is not a time to jump in to look political. We all know it was a non-crime. No shocker.
From what I have read, the Supreme Court decision was legally correct. The immunity was for sitting Presidents and Trump has yet to be seated. Additionally, this was sentencing in a state case which had already been decided. The whole case was a total sham, but SCOTUS was correct in not intervening. I am surprised with your conclusions. SCOTUS can only be used as final arbiter of Constitutional Law.
The problem is that Merchan compromised the trial by including evidence related to actions during Trump's first term, among other issues. Immunity is meant to protect individuals from the burdens of legal proceedings, regardless of whether a sentence has been imposed. SCOTUS overlooked this principle and should not have denied a stay simply because no sentence was given.
The improperly included evidence is fodder for appeal, but SCOTUS was asked to intervene in sentencing, not to nullify the conviction. This has proceeded as it should have. Love you guys! Always looking forward to your postings.
I think Cmey Barrett just wanted a record to be perfected so the appeal could be undertaken. Stepping in at the 23rd hour looks as political as the underlying fake charges. So I agree with her decision. It will be reversed. Just let the system play out. My 2 cents.
The problem is that, even if it were as you say, and we obviously can't read her mind, the decision would still be based on extraneous factors rather than on the law itself, which is 100% clear in this instance.
We all agree there was no crime. But they cannot adjudicate the appellate process without having the record perfected. Trust me. I should know. I worked for trial attorneys for better part of 25 years. Lots of trial and appellate work. You read too much into that. She didn't want to have this political. She wanted a record perfected so she can give us the 1 word order that says REVERSED. We can only hope for such brevity.
Just to be clear they adjudicate the appeal. I was just referring to perfecting the record as an integral part of the process. This is not a time to jump in to look political. We all know it was a non-crime. No shocker.
From what I have read, the Supreme Court decision was legally correct. The immunity was for sitting Presidents and Trump has yet to be seated. Additionally, this was sentencing in a state case which had already been decided. The whole case was a total sham, but SCOTUS was correct in not intervening. I am surprised with your conclusions. SCOTUS can only be used as final arbiter of Constitutional Law.
The problem is that Merchan compromised the trial by including evidence related to actions during Trump's first term, among other issues. Immunity is meant to protect individuals from the burdens of legal proceedings, regardless of whether a sentence has been imposed. SCOTUS overlooked this principle and should not have denied a stay simply because no sentence was given.
The improperly included evidence is fodder for appeal, but SCOTUS was asked to intervene in sentencing, not to nullify the conviction. This has proceeded as it should have. Love you guys! Always looking forward to your postings.