There is no way that any of the Trump cases is going to trial before Election Day. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no trial in any of them in 2024, in fact.
Yes on Stanford Law overtaking Yale Law to be #1 without a tie. It could have happened last year, but I bet U.S. News didn't want it to look like it "punished" YLS for leading the boycott.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump being on the ballot. The stretch prediction is to add the reason(s) for that conclusion and/or margin of justices. Since there are no penalties for wrong answers here's my swag at it.
Textualism is the judicial theory in vogue, so SCOTUS will rule that while the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who has "engaged in insurrection from holding office", that does not prohibit someone from appearing on the ballot. SCOTUS will punt on the question of whether Trump has engaged in insurrection. Bonus points: vote will be 7-2 for the majority opinion (with Kagen joining), multiple concurrences will address (but perhaps not decide): 1) standard of review for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection, 2) federalism/supremacy clause of state officials deciding Constitutional issues, 3) Congressional role in waiver of for individuals, and 4) dicta about the role of impeachment. In many ways, this will be an advisory opinion.
My dogs know as much about the future as I do, but here goes:
1. I expect a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court, with perhaps two concurrences. Clever lawyers can figure their way out of anything, and John Roberts is nothing if not a clever lawyer. He will write the opinion. They will not get to the insurrection issue. The textual argument--holding office vs. merely running for office--is clever but will make no sense to the public. So, I expect the Court to come up with something else.
2. The only Trump case that will go to trial is the DC election interference case, and Trump will be convicted. Why? Jack Smith is a far better trial lawyer than his competition. He pleaded his case narrowly and against a single defendant. And, for those of you who think that only politics matters in the Trump litigation, Smith has the evidence and the witnesses. They will count. As for Trump's chances on appeal, who knows? The Atlanta case will not go to trial this year and perhaps not next year.
3. The New York state judge will hold Trump and his entities liable for between $350 and $400 million, which Trump will never pay. As I often tell clients, there is a difference between winning and collecting. But Trump will not declare personal bankruptcy (moral bankruptcy is another matter).
4. Will Stanford overtake Yale as the no. 1 law school? Hell, if I know and I don't care. But Supreme Court justices will continue to favor Yale and Harvard over Stanford when hiring law clerks.
5. Another bold prediction-Biden will easily defeat Trump? Why? Because Trump and his acolytes never have had a majority in this country. Biden will appoint the Solicitor General to the Court in his second term. The Democrats will take over the House but may lose the Senate. That should make for multiple confirmation battles, so the Solicitor General actually is a safe choice.
6. The fate of Biglaw? I am a mere mortal and am not qualified to explain the ways of the gods.
Will 2024 be good, bad, or something in between for Biglaw?
- Something in between. It will be really great for partners and senior level associates who have established themselves within the industry. The M&A market specifically can only go up and even with pharmaceutical companies sitting with over 700 Billion dollars worth of savings for acquisitions I think this sector will flourish. For entry level associates, the influx of AI combined with different back to work trends will make it more difficult for them to understand what the role of a corporate lawyer is. Just listened to David Marcus' podcast with Matthew Gemello, and some of the qualities clients desire from young associates are qualities 25-30 year olds (including myself) struggle to obtain.
Will Stanford overtake Yale as the #1 law school?
- Ties in with the next question but my guess is no. Stanford at least with my peers is viewed as a law school pushing a political agenda which dissuades top talent. Don't get me wrong, Stanford is the creme de la creme but when we're talking about top talent I think how a school treats differing opinions is factored into decision making. The next 2 reasons are a bit more basic, but play an important role. Yale's lay prestige and location. Everyone knows Yale law is top dog and then combined with being in the heart of the Ivy League and close to NYC, Boston, Philly/DC, they can just recruit that talent easier. Seems basic but I do think it plays a role. With all the USNWR changes, I could be wrong but I would be shocked if Yale gets jumped.
Which law school will be the site of the next big free-speech controversy?
- Berkeley. Relates to previous answer but from my friends who did undergrad there to a few peers who are in their law school, there is a clear tension on the campus. Law students specifically have mentioned being overly aware of their word choice in the classroom with the fear of being "cancelled" or "secluded" from their colleagues. However, Berkeley is still a great school so it will recruit individuals who are not solely "ultra-liberal" which is bound to create large amounts of tension. I think the free speech controversy will not be similar to the Judge Duncan controversy at Stanford, but rather the debate and controversy will surround contention between fellow law students.
I don't think this will happen, but the result I very much want to have everyones' heads explode (and, honestly, the result that would be best for America IMO, though I'll concede the possibility that a 9-0 case could be better) is if Trump v. Anderson is an 8-1 decision with Thomas in dissent arguing to disqualify Trump on extreme originalist grounds.
Having more impact on the USA than Trump and the constitutional ramifications of possible court cases to come is a court case actually taking place at the moment, but nowhere near the USA itself: Israel is in the dock in the Hague, and any decisions against it will severely impugn the USA's reputation, and may force it to make fundamental changes in policy, and even to sanction the state of Israel and many of its citizens, regardless of whether Trump or Biden or Mickey Mouse is in the White House.
It gives me great pleasure to say this:
Liberty of thought and discussion will not be damaged if Trump is not permitted by law to stand. Anyone could espouse his beliefs and propose his policies to the American voters. Martyring Trump might even make his beliefs and policies an election-winner. But the Court case in The Hague might well make "From the River to The Sea" a reality.
SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump in Colorado. What is an 'insurrection' will factor into the decision, and the fact that Trump has not been convicted of a crime related to January 6th.
I think the Trump trial will happen, especially in Georgia. But I don't think Trump will be convicted. And I don't think it will go smoothly, at all.
The problem with having so many cases is people are getting weary of hearing about them. And this could influence juries. Esp with what's at stake. People are going to be very, very wary of making such monumental decisions that have so much impact.
Generally...
I don't think the January 6th criminal cases will factor into the election as much as people think they will. I do think that the Republican's obsessive attacks on cis women and the LGBTQ+ community will have an impact, as will immigration. However, I think that Republicans' over-the-top handling of migration, ala Abbott, will bite the GOP in the butt. As will the GOP's over-the-top handling of book bans, attacks on education, and healthcare rights for cis women and the LGBTQ+ community. As my solidly Republican father used to say: These things are not his business. I think this will start playing out more among voters-the distaste for state governments intervening between patients and doctors.
The House will return to Democrats but Democrats will lose the Senate, but the latter will be very close. The House Republicans shooting selves in own foots will continue.
And I don't think the mainstream media will cover any of this accurately, honestly, or effectively.
There is no way that any of the Trump cases is going to trial before Election Day. I wouldn't be surprised if there's no trial in any of them in 2024, in fact.
Yes on Stanford Law overtaking Yale Law to be #1 without a tie. It could have happened last year, but I bet U.S. News didn't want it to look like it "punished" YLS for leading the boycott.
2024 is going to be a great year for M&A—and therefore Biglaw. But I don't think there will be another pay raise, since we just had one.
I don't think it is much of a stretch to say that SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump being on the ballot. The stretch prediction is to add the reason(s) for that conclusion and/or margin of justices. Since there are no penalties for wrong answers here's my swag at it.
Textualism is the judicial theory in vogue, so SCOTUS will rule that while the 14th amendment prohibits anyone who has "engaged in insurrection from holding office", that does not prohibit someone from appearing on the ballot. SCOTUS will punt on the question of whether Trump has engaged in insurrection. Bonus points: vote will be 7-2 for the majority opinion (with Kagen joining), multiple concurrences will address (but perhaps not decide): 1) standard of review for determining whether someone has engaged in insurrection, 2) federalism/supremacy clause of state officials deciding Constitutional issues, 3) Congressional role in waiver of for individuals, and 4) dicta about the role of impeachment. In many ways, this will be an advisory opinion.
Trump will win in the SC, and eon 50 ballots
The Trump civil suit will be overturned, Engoron will resign and write a book
Hunter's legal problems will give Joe a reason to retire
J6 charges for obstructing an official proceeding will be dismissed, and convictions tossed
Willis and Smith will see their cases implode
My dogs know as much about the future as I do, but here goes:
1. I expect a 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court, with perhaps two concurrences. Clever lawyers can figure their way out of anything, and John Roberts is nothing if not a clever lawyer. He will write the opinion. They will not get to the insurrection issue. The textual argument--holding office vs. merely running for office--is clever but will make no sense to the public. So, I expect the Court to come up with something else.
2. The only Trump case that will go to trial is the DC election interference case, and Trump will be convicted. Why? Jack Smith is a far better trial lawyer than his competition. He pleaded his case narrowly and against a single defendant. And, for those of you who think that only politics matters in the Trump litigation, Smith has the evidence and the witnesses. They will count. As for Trump's chances on appeal, who knows? The Atlanta case will not go to trial this year and perhaps not next year.
3. The New York state judge will hold Trump and his entities liable for between $350 and $400 million, which Trump will never pay. As I often tell clients, there is a difference between winning and collecting. But Trump will not declare personal bankruptcy (moral bankruptcy is another matter).
4. Will Stanford overtake Yale as the no. 1 law school? Hell, if I know and I don't care. But Supreme Court justices will continue to favor Yale and Harvard over Stanford when hiring law clerks.
5. Another bold prediction-Biden will easily defeat Trump? Why? Because Trump and his acolytes never have had a majority in this country. Biden will appoint the Solicitor General to the Court in his second term. The Democrats will take over the House but may lose the Senate. That should make for multiple confirmation battles, so the Solicitor General actually is a safe choice.
6. The fate of Biglaw? I am a mere mortal and am not qualified to explain the ways of the gods.
Will 2024 be good, bad, or something in between for Biglaw?
- Something in between. It will be really great for partners and senior level associates who have established themselves within the industry. The M&A market specifically can only go up and even with pharmaceutical companies sitting with over 700 Billion dollars worth of savings for acquisitions I think this sector will flourish. For entry level associates, the influx of AI combined with different back to work trends will make it more difficult for them to understand what the role of a corporate lawyer is. Just listened to David Marcus' podcast with Matthew Gemello, and some of the qualities clients desire from young associates are qualities 25-30 year olds (including myself) struggle to obtain.
Will Stanford overtake Yale as the #1 law school?
- Ties in with the next question but my guess is no. Stanford at least with my peers is viewed as a law school pushing a political agenda which dissuades top talent. Don't get me wrong, Stanford is the creme de la creme but when we're talking about top talent I think how a school treats differing opinions is factored into decision making. The next 2 reasons are a bit more basic, but play an important role. Yale's lay prestige and location. Everyone knows Yale law is top dog and then combined with being in the heart of the Ivy League and close to NYC, Boston, Philly/DC, they can just recruit that talent easier. Seems basic but I do think it plays a role. With all the USNWR changes, I could be wrong but I would be shocked if Yale gets jumped.
Which law school will be the site of the next big free-speech controversy?
- Berkeley. Relates to previous answer but from my friends who did undergrad there to a few peers who are in their law school, there is a clear tension on the campus. Law students specifically have mentioned being overly aware of their word choice in the classroom with the fear of being "cancelled" or "secluded" from their colleagues. However, Berkeley is still a great school so it will recruit individuals who are not solely "ultra-liberal" which is bound to create large amounts of tension. I think the free speech controversy will not be similar to the Judge Duncan controversy at Stanford, but rather the debate and controversy will surround contention between fellow law students.
I don't think this will happen, but the result I very much want to have everyones' heads explode (and, honestly, the result that would be best for America IMO, though I'll concede the possibility that a 9-0 case could be better) is if Trump v. Anderson is an 8-1 decision with Thomas in dissent arguing to disqualify Trump on extreme originalist grounds.
It gives me no pleasure to say this:
Having more impact on the USA than Trump and the constitutional ramifications of possible court cases to come is a court case actually taking place at the moment, but nowhere near the USA itself: Israel is in the dock in the Hague, and any decisions against it will severely impugn the USA's reputation, and may force it to make fundamental changes in policy, and even to sanction the state of Israel and many of its citizens, regardless of whether Trump or Biden or Mickey Mouse is in the White House.
It gives me great pleasure to say this:
Liberty of thought and discussion will not be damaged if Trump is not permitted by law to stand. Anyone could espouse his beliefs and propose his policies to the American voters. Martyring Trump might even make his beliefs and policies an election-winner. But the Court case in The Hague might well make "From the River to The Sea" a reality.
SCOTUS will rule in favor of Trump in Colorado. What is an 'insurrection' will factor into the decision, and the fact that Trump has not been convicted of a crime related to January 6th.
I think the Trump trial will happen, especially in Georgia. But I don't think Trump will be convicted. And I don't think it will go smoothly, at all.
The problem with having so many cases is people are getting weary of hearing about them. And this could influence juries. Esp with what's at stake. People are going to be very, very wary of making such monumental decisions that have so much impact.
Generally...
I don't think the January 6th criminal cases will factor into the election as much as people think they will. I do think that the Republican's obsessive attacks on cis women and the LGBTQ+ community will have an impact, as will immigration. However, I think that Republicans' over-the-top handling of migration, ala Abbott, will bite the GOP in the butt. As will the GOP's over-the-top handling of book bans, attacks on education, and healthcare rights for cis women and the LGBTQ+ community. As my solidly Republican father used to say: These things are not his business. I think this will start playing out more among voters-the distaste for state governments intervening between patients and doctors.
The House will return to Democrats but Democrats will lose the Senate, but the latter will be very close. The House Republicans shooting selves in own foots will continue.
And I don't think the mainstream media will cover any of this accurately, honestly, or effectively.
Wasn't Sotomayor the first Latino appointment? I am sure Brad Garcia will be appointed someday, perhaps to replace Sotomayor.