Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case of Trump v. United States, regarding Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection because his actions that day were official actions.  They also announced that arguments will be held this term — on April 22.  There is a lot to unpack in this order.

Let’s start with the procedural posture of this case.  Late last year, the trial judge (sitting in the federal district court for D.C.) denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based, in part, on his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken while President.  He then filed an “interlocutory” appeal of that ruling.  (In most cases, parties can only appeal when a case is over.  There are a limited number of circumstances in which a party can immediately appeal from a pre-trial ruling,)   The appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) expedited the appeal (even more so than is normal for interlocutory appeals).  Despite the D.C. Circuit expediting the case, the special prosecutor, In December, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case without waiting for a ruling from the appellate court (something that is rarely done).    But, on December 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that request.

On February 6, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court.  Normally, there would be a brief period of time before the “mandate” (the formal order implementing the opinion and restoring the authority to the trial court to proceed).  But the panel that issued the opinion set a quick deadline of February 12 for Trump to get a stay of the mandate from either the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.  As such, on February 12, Trump filed for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now, in most cases, once the stay were granted, the case would proceed on a normal schedule.  On a normal schedule, Trump would then ask for rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit.  If and when the D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case (the ruling in almost all cases), Trump would then have ninety days (plus any extensions) to ask for certioarari (the formal order taking the appeal) from the Supreme Court.  In some cases, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, it will also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari.  The special prosecutor, in his response to the stay application, while arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the stay, made the alternative argument that, if the U.S. Supreme Court did grant the stay, it should exercise that power to treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari and expedite the case. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Also tagged , , Leave a comment

Super Tuesday Week

Tuesday is Super Tuesday — the first Tuesday of the primary cycle in which any state can hold a primary contest.  As most states use state-run primaries, there will be a large number of states on Tuesday.

But, before Super Tuesday, several states that are using party-run contests will be holding Republican contests as the “window” for the Republicans opened yesterday.  (The “window” for Democrats opens on Tuesday.)  As discussed last week, one of the contests today is the second half of the Republican’s Michigan two-step with the Republican state convention which will be allocating the “district” level delegates.  In addition to Michigan, today will see events in Missouri and Idaho.

The Missouri Republican rules are somewhat ambiguous.  It looks like they are doing a traditional caucus with a 15% threshold and an unspecified winner-take-all kicker at local option.  But rather than allocating delegates based on today’s vote (which is what the national rules appear to require), they are merely binding the delegates chosen today to vote the same preference at the district conventions (which should effectively have the same result).  Missouri is using a caucus because our current Secretary of State repeatedly lied and claimed that the state-run primary was nonbinding (when the rules of both party made the primary binding) and a repeal of the primary was slipped into an omnibus election bill which passed despite the unanimous opposition of Democratic legislature).  The Democrats will be holding a party-run primary in three weeks with a mail-in option. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives, Presidential Candidates, Primary Elections, Senate | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

South Carolina Recap

It’s hard interpreting the Republican results for president this year.  If Donald Trump were the incumbent, the numbers that he is getting would be the sign of substantial opposition within the party.  If this year were a truly open primary (i.e. he was not being treated as the “incumbent candidate” by Republicans), his results would be outstanding.

But the bigger story out of Saturday might be at the Congressional District level and is about the House of Representatives, not the presidency.  Nikki Haley only won one of the seven congressional districts — the First District.  Nancy Mace is the current, two-term, incumbent.  She was one of the “Freedom Caucus Eight” who voted to vacate the chair.  Kevin McCarthy is apparently planning on supporting a primary challenger to Representative Mace.  Does the fact that Nikki Haley got 53% of the vote show that a majority of the Republicans in the First District will support an establishment challenger to a Trumpist candidate.  If so, the Representative Mace’s time in Congress might be coming to a quick end.  Additionally, while the lines were a little different, the last time that the Republicans were this divided and supported the more extreme primary candidate, the Democrats managed to win this district (in 2018).  So, if the Democrats find a credible candidate for the general and Representative Mace wins the primary, perhaps enough real Republicans do not vote in the general or opt to vote for the Democrat to take this seat away from the Freedom Caucus.

Posted in Elections, GOP, House of Representatives, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , Leave a comment

2024 Presidential Primaries — South Carolina Republicans and Michigan

As we head into the last week of February, we are also reaching the end of the authorized early primaries.  Under the respective rules of the two parties, there is a preliminary window in which only some states were authorized to hold early primaries/caucuses.  For the Republicans, the “regular” primary window opens on March 1.  For Democrats, the “regular” primary window opens on the first Tuesday in March (March 5).

For this last week, we have three primaries on the book.  First up, today, is the South Carolina Republican primary.  South Carolina law allows the parties to choose the date of their own primary, and the two parties have tended to choose different dates (but usually a Saturday).  And so we had the Democratic primary several weeks back which was won by President Joe Biden.  Now, it’s the Republican primary.  While there are seven candidates on the ballot, two of them are not known nationally, and three of the nationally-known candidates have dropped out.  In other words, while five of the candidates may get some votes, there are only two with any chance of winning delegates — former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and a candidate who ineligible to be president, Donald Trump.  South Carolina Republicans use a “winner-take-most” system for allocating delegates.  In other words, each congressional district has three delegates and whomever wins that district gets all three delegates.  Likewise, there are twenty-nine at-large delegates, and whomever wins the state gets all twenty-nine delegates.  Especially with only two serious candidates in the races, whomever wins statewide will have won at least one congressional district (and probably will have won more than one).  Thus, the winner of the primary is guaranteed to take at least 32 of the 50 delegates (which is why this type of system is referred to as winner-take-most).  Despite the fact that Nikki Haley used to be the governor of South Carolina, the traditional Republican Party in South Carolina is dead and has been replaced by the Trump Party.  While anybody who did not vote in the Democratic Primary could theoretically vote in the Republican Primary, there probably will not be enough independents and Democrats voting to save the Republican Party from itself.  Polls show Donald Trump leading by a wide enough margin that he should win all fifty delegates, and the only question is whether Nikki Haley can make it close enough to steal a district or two.

On Tuesday, we will primaries for both parties in Michigan.  President Joe Biden should win the state easily.  Neither Representative Dean Phillips nor Marianne Williamson is a serious contender to reach the fifteen percent to win delegates.  The real contender to take delegates away from President Biden is “uncommitted.”  Representative Rashida Tlaib has been encouraging voters to vote for uncommitted in protest of President Biden’s middle of the road stance on Israel’s response to Hamas’s invasion of Israel.  While the pro-Palestinian progressive wing of the Democratic Party has a problem with Israel trying to remove Hamas from the Gaza Strip, if President Biden were to do what they want him to do, it would guarantee Donald Trump’s victory in November.  If uncommitted stays below 15% (state-wide or in any individual district), President Biden will win all of the delegates (state-wide or in that district).  The largest districts have seven delegates; so it is unlikely that uncommitted will get more than one delegate in any individual district.  The one exception to that might be Representative Tlaib’s district.  And the issue in that district will be whether uncommitted can get to the 21% necessary to win a second delegate.  If uncommitted does not win any delegates in that district, we could see a primary challenge to Representative Tlaib emerge.  State-wide, there are twenty-five at-large delegates and fifteen party-leader delegates.  As such, if uncommitted were to get to fifteen percent state-wide, uncommitted would get, at least, four at-large and two party-leader delegates.   But the expectation is that President Biden will win almost all of the 117 delegates at stake on Tuesday. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Elections, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , , , Leave a comment

Presidential Primaries — South Carolina, Nevada, and Virgin Islands

Over the next week, we will have four/five primary contests for the two parties.  (Four if you only count the binding contests, five if you count the beauty contests.)  This list includes the first two sanctioned contests on the Democratic side.

First up is today’s Democratic primary in South Carolina.  South Carolina is a little bit different from the rest of the country.  While South Carolina has a state-run primary, it allows the parties to choose the date of its own presidential primary.  As a result, it is not unusual for the two parties to choose different days.  (That flexibility allowed the Democratic National Committee to place South Carolina at the start of the primary schedule.)  The Democrats will hold their primary today, but the Republicans will not hold their primary for another three weeks.

As with most other states, the Democratic primary is essentially multiple primaries at the same time.  There are, effectively, two state-wide primaries — one for at-large delegates and one for “pledged party leader and elected officials” (PLEO) delegates.  Meanwhile, there is a primary in each congressional district.  Voters will cast only one vote, but it will be counted in each of the relevant contests.  For each of these races, the key number is 15%.  Any candidate who gets 15% will get at least one delegate from that pool of delegate. Continue Reading...

Posted in Presidential Candidates, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , , , Leave a comment

New Hampshire Primary

Today is round two for the Republicans with the New Hampshire Primary.  Because primary dates are set by state law, there will also be a non-binding primary (a/k/a “beauty contest”) on the Democratic side (more on that below).

While there will be other candidates on the ballot, there are only two major candidates on the Republican side — Donald Trump and Nikki Haley.  Given that New Hampshire has a semi-open primary in which independents can vote in either party’s primary, it is believed that there will be a significant number of “moderates” who opt to vote in the Republican primary.  If there is a chance for Nikki Haley to win nationally, she needs a win in New Hampshire.  Given Trump’s many issues (legal, physical, mental), the Republicans really do not need the chaos that would ensue if Trump “wins” the nomination but has to withdraw before the convention.  (And while it is hard to project what the Supreme Court intends to do, it is easier for them to do the legally correct thing if Trump is not the presumptive Republican nominee.)  New Hampshire is a proportional state, so unless Haley or Trump blows the other out of the water what really matters here is the perception that Haley can compete and beat Trump than the actual delegate count.)

On the Democratic side, the timing of the New Hampshire primary (set by state law) violates the national delegate selection rules.  As a result, the primary is a non-binding primary.  Because the New Hampshire Democratic Party has decided to resist the national rules and support the unenforceable state law mandating that other states let New Hampshire goes first, New Hampshire has had its delegate total reduced to ten delegates.  More importantly, we do not yet have an approved plan for how those delegates will be chosen. Continue Reading...

Posted in Joe Biden, NH Primary, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on New Hampshire Primary

Iowa Caucuses 2024

The 2024 presidential primaries officially kicks off on Monday night in the frigid cold of Iowa.

Traditionally, the Iowa Caucuses have three major components.  First, they are used to create the local organization of the political parties as caucus attendees elect the precinct’s representatives to the county committee.  Second, they are used to choose the delegates to the county convention (which in turn will choose the congressional district/state convention delegates who will elect the national convention delegates).  Third, a preference vote is taken which is used to allocate national convention delegates.

Thanks in part to Iowa’s move to the right and past problems with counting and report the preference vote, the national Democratic Party has rescinded its permission for Iowa to conduct a pre-March preference vote.  Unlike their counterparts in New Hampshire, Iowa Democrats have worked with the national party (in the hopes that in the future they might get a pre-March spot back).  But it is helpful to have both parties hold their precinct caucuses on the same date and holding a later event would create timing issues.  So the Democrats will use their caucuses for the purposes of electing party officials and the delegates who will attend the county conventions.  But to comply with national party rules, there will be no presidential preference vote on Monday.  Instead, there will be a party-run primary that will conclude in March. Continue Reading...

Posted in Iowa Caucuses, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Iowa Caucuses 2024

The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

Today, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold oral arguments on Donald Trump’s appeal of the decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution for the events of January 6.  Apparently, the accused intends to personally attend this argument.  (For the reasons discussed below, his attorneys are likely unhappy with the decision and Trump may throw a temper tantrum either during or after the argument.)  For the millions who are unable to make it to the federal courthouse, the D.C. Circuit will be livestreaming the audio of the argument.  And the recording will posted on the court’s website by the close of business today.

I am not going to spend time on the merits of the case because the merits are really one-sided.  The trial judge in this case is respected by her peers and her order thoroughly demonstrates why Trump’s claim of immunity has no factual or legal merit.  It will be affirmed.  Instead, this post is intended to help readers understand what will be happening.

The first thing to understand is that oral argument is the last part of the case.  Even at the state level, it is expected that the judges will have read the written arguments (formally known as briefs of the party).  If the judges have the time, they may also have looked at the relevant portions of the trial court records to answer any factual questions that they may have about the proceeding.  They may also have looked at the key cases cited by the parties to understand what those cases actually say (instead of how the attorneys have tried to spin them).  In short, the judges have almost certainly formed an opinion about the issues in the case, and oral argument is a last chance for the parties to correct any misimpressions that they judges may have. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Also tagged , Comments Off on The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson.  However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson.  Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.

First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly.  The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days).  The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5.  This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.

Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented.  Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue.  For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw?  If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted.  For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues:  1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot.  In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, Donald Trump, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

Supreme Court Update

Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.

Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley.  (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.)  In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications.  These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval.  Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case.  The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit.  Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone.  Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review.  Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.  This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.

While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community.  And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval.  As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies.  As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case.   If not, there is always the November elections. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Update