On what happens next with the Presidential Impugnity case.
1. Trump files a motion for hearing en banc to ask all the DC Circuit judges to weigh in. They have discretion to take up the request or deny it. He does not have to do this before going to the Supremes, but it adds some more potential for delay.
2. Assume he goes direct to SCOTUS they do not have to take up the case. Usually, they require at least four votes to move something from the "shadow docket."
3. Trump will have to make a strong showing that this is a case that the Supremes should take up. Among the potential grounds the strongest is the "national importance" criterion.
4. The default assumption is that there is no appetite to take a petition to uphold the lower court ruling but that's not hard and fast.
5. If SCOTUS turns down the petition or hears it and affirms, Trump will not be able to claim absolute immunity in any of the cases pending that allege criminal conduct while he was in office.
6. SCOTUS could hear and decide some legal reasoning was off and "remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion." That can mean either come out the other way or find another way to reach the same result.
7. SCOTUS could hear and decide that Trump does, indeed, have the right not to be tried based on a doctrine of presidential immunity. If five justices wish the Court to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, that's what will happen. Were Trump elected, the courts would be powerless to restrain him and Congress would, also. If a new bill of impeachment were somehow to reach the Senate, this time he can simply direct a sufficient number of Senators to be assassinated in the Senate Chamber to prevent a conviction. That's extreme, because surely that can't go unchecked, but pull back a millimeter and the assassins just brandish weapons to intimidate. Is THAT within the scope of the office? You can see where that goes—there is no principled basis to make otherwise criminal conduct exempt from prosecution for just the one person.
If the roles were reversed (in my family), the caption might say, “Geez, Sweetheart, all I can find is hair products, and I have nothing to use them on.”
Well, as he mop flops. For one day, I would just like not to read, see, hear or otherwise have any news whatsoever about the orange man. Still, this news was encouraging, I must say. Having two bathrooms would solve the "product" problem. But I did, as always, love the toon. Your work always makes me either laugh or think; and, sometimes both, which is a boon for me.
"He is an encroacher. He encroaches. Encroacher in Chief. (Forgive me)" No nee for apologies, Liza! You have found the word that goes perfectly with the Orange.....Encroacher!
It’s a good day, it’s getting my hopes up….
The cartoon is 👌🏼. I actually remember our son first referring to what was in his hair as ‘product’. His dad’s eyebrow hit his hair line.
hahahaha!
If she were talking to him, she could have a small misty aura representing scent, while he could be s belching smokestack of cologne
Why don't you do a Rose Bud riff on Citizen Trump?
I'm inclined to say that Trump is less of an encroacher than an enroacher.
Or just a roach.
:)
On what happens next with the Presidential Impugnity case.
1. Trump files a motion for hearing en banc to ask all the DC Circuit judges to weigh in. They have discretion to take up the request or deny it. He does not have to do this before going to the Supremes, but it adds some more potential for delay.
2. Assume he goes direct to SCOTUS they do not have to take up the case. Usually, they require at least four votes to move something from the "shadow docket."
3. Trump will have to make a strong showing that this is a case that the Supremes should take up. Among the potential grounds the strongest is the "national importance" criterion.
4. The default assumption is that there is no appetite to take a petition to uphold the lower court ruling but that's not hard and fast.
5. If SCOTUS turns down the petition or hears it and affirms, Trump will not be able to claim absolute immunity in any of the cases pending that allege criminal conduct while he was in office.
6. SCOTUS could hear and decide some legal reasoning was off and "remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion." That can mean either come out the other way or find another way to reach the same result.
7. SCOTUS could hear and decide that Trump does, indeed, have the right not to be tried based on a doctrine of presidential immunity. If five justices wish the Court to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization, that's what will happen. Were Trump elected, the courts would be powerless to restrain him and Congress would, also. If a new bill of impeachment were somehow to reach the Senate, this time he can simply direct a sufficient number of Senators to be assassinated in the Senate Chamber to prevent a conviction. That's extreme, because surely that can't go unchecked, but pull back a millimeter and the assassins just brandish weapons to intimidate. Is THAT within the scope of the office? You can see where that goes—there is no principled basis to make otherwise criminal conduct exempt from prosecution for just the one person.
If the roles were reversed (in my family), the caption might say, “Geez, Sweetheart, all I can find is hair products, and I have nothing to use them on.”
Yep, so many cases. And all of them feel like they are moving at a snail’s pace.
Melania is a natural beauty. Trump used to be good looking but his "white" genetics don't age well. Better to be eastern European.
Well, as he mop flops. For one day, I would just like not to read, see, hear or otherwise have any news whatsoever about the orange man. Still, this news was encouraging, I must say. Having two bathrooms would solve the "product" problem. But I did, as always, love the toon. Your work always makes me either laugh or think; and, sometimes both, which is a boon for me.
Thank you, I love it.
Plus, I think I wanted to use the word “encroach.”
I like the cartoon, even without the Trump parallel.
Changing places, the guy would say “what’s all this sh*t on our counter?”
“Let’s try to keep the sink area simple hun. We’re real last time I looked in the mirror.”
"He is an encroacher. He encroaches. Encroacher in Chief. (Forgive me)" No nee for apologies, Liza! You have found the word that goes perfectly with the Orange.....Encroacher!
Encroacher-in-chief is so apt. Just watching him on screen is suffocating!
Do you mean if the sexes were reversed?
Love everything about this, Liza! I understand your wanting to use the word encroach. I always want to use the word whilst!
Thank you!