Their only function in the grand scheme of things is to delay their ruling long enough to delay the trial until after the election, in which case, should trump win by some miracle, he can get his loyal Attorney General to dismiss all the federal charges against him.
However, if trump looses the election, he also looses all his political power, in which case he's no longer of any use to anyone politically, and no one will give a shit if he goes to prison or not.
So at this point the only thing that matters is the results in November.

...so the situation I'm talking about is only an issue if he loses.

Trump's decline is beginning to look steep enough to be a likely impediment to winning election. God forbid he does win. On top of everything else we know about why he'd fuck the country over, his cabinet of lackeys would never declare him unfit no matter how far he declines, they'd just create their own corrupt, fascist nightmare while propping Trump up Weekend at Bernie's style.

If this were to happen, Melania would gain control of everything. Including power of attorney. She would then make it so she gets everything when he croaks. The kids would know this and they would rather he rot in jail drooling so they get their cut then let her take it all. They’ll tie it up in court until he strokes out so they can keep their slice of his corpse.

Extremely.

It’s naïve to expect the courts the stop Trump.

...not general pessimism about Trump escaping justice one way or another.

Courts don't arbitrarily determine someone to be mentally unfit. They assume a Defendant is responsible for his actions UNLESS his attorney claims mental impairment as their defense strategy. And Trump will never agree to that.

...he's drooling, taking his clothes off in public, smearing feces on the wall, clearly has no idea where he is, etc. He might be declining fast enough that that's the state he'll be in a year from now. Something far, far from "arbitrarily determin(ing) someone to be mentally unfit".

I have no doubt.

...not general pessimism about Trump escaping justice one way or another.

be 'guilty' on at LEAST one count. So...

At this point, it's hard to see why tsf could suddenly be ruled unfit to stand trial, one of which should happen with Cannon by Aug 12, per the earlier request filed by team tsf.

SCOTUS will likely remand tsf's immunity case to DC by the end of June to help SCOTUS learn what 'private' and 'official' acts are. SCOTUS's 3 month "alleging" delay is Chutkan's only trial delay. So...
Since SCOTUS has not taken any amici (or whatever they are) by psychiatrist/psychologist experts used in courts to diagnose incompetency on direct medical examination. Once again, an incompetency ruling is unlikely.

Meanwhile, Chutkan can hold a hearing, get Barr's and Pence's sworn testimony to clarify and validate her previous rulings (team tsf can't appeal anything from hearings), then send her 'revised' ruling directly back to the SC by the time they reconvene on Oct 7.
By Oct 7 when SCOTUS reconvenes, it might/might not rule to allow the DC trial to proceed.

Soon after will come Nov 5, and soon after that, one or more court fights begin again over state election certifications where Democratic wins are fraud but Rethug wins are fair counts.

It's pretty late in all these proceedings for tsf's mental incompetence to be proven in courts.
Most real courts, along with the court of public opinion, see that tsf's mental incompetence is only apparent -- probably an act -- on the campaign trail.

But who knows how long until the other trials start? It could even be a year or more from now if SCOTUS is devious enough about gumming up the works for Trump.

Oh, I don't think it's an act at all. If you've read any of the recent articles about this, a number of mental health professionals are speaking up to say that Trump shows all the signs of advancing dementia -- that's what inspired this post.

If it's another year beyond now until Trump has to stand trial for anything else, I'm thinking it's not outside of the realm of possibility that Trump will be so far gone it can't be ignored or papered over, as bad as trying to make a three year-old stand trial.

Laurence Tribe, Michael Luttig & Andrew Weissman have posted legal memoranda there.

https://www.justsecurity.org/88039/trumps-legal-and-political-calendar-all-the-dates-you-need-to-know/

You misunderstand how incompetency is ruled in courts.
Just because everyone's seeing tsf's verbal incompetency at rallies -- acting or not (I've known he was dyslexic since I read about his college work and his inability to digest PDB's over six years ago) -- and just because some so-called distant experts see the signs of dementia, none of that counts in a court. It's just really not a matter of what you or even millions think.

A court requires a complete battery of physical and mental testing, along with several corroborating diagnoses, to be entered into an evidentiary hearing, at which point the judge may or may not rule tsf incompetent to stand trial. He certainly wasn't incompetent when he committed the crimes that all the evidence in the indictments point to, was he. No. He was competent then. Reasonable doubt in the face of so much evidence that's been shown in discovery would, so far, mitigate against a ruling of incompetency to stand trial.

I recall what Ari Melber said Friday... that anything can be alleged; he said you can "allege" your way all the way to the SCOTUS these days, by the looks of the way tsf's team operates.

Nothing's outside the realm of possibility outside of the courts, especially when we feel helpless in the face of delayed justice. But we can't justify rule of law, or enforce rule of law under a standard of "possibility."

What you're concerned about is not likely to enter into the courts because the courts are the realm of evidentiary reality, not what laypersons see as a possibility.

All of which is why I keep saying it's not likely. I mean... You asked, right?

I’m talking about what happens IF, a year from now, Trump at that time is no more fit to stand trial than a three year-old, THEN WHAT?

This is a POSSIBILITY I am inviting people to consider, not a judgement I’m making about what will happen, or what a court might possibly decide right now.

But to go along with your IF... IF he's no more fit to stand trial than a 3 yr old, then he'll still stand trial.

The thing is, IF questions seem like a kind of time wasting setup of speculation. Speculation -- or considering possibilities -- isn't useful right now. Only what's going on in the courts is useful.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here... scare yourself and others? Trump will not subvert the courts, or our three branches of government. He's just one guy. What's going on is that this demented, slurring criminal defendant is requireing an army of lawyers and hundreds of millions of oligarch money behind him to upend this democracy.
Maybe that's what concerns you? It certainly concerns me, not his mental competence.

The kind of person who, when asked, "Would you eat this bug for a million dollars?" refuses to answer the question, but instead insists no one would pay that amount of money for bug eating -- which misses what the question is really getting at.

What I see here seems to dispute that: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/competency-stand-trial.html



Emphasis mine:


I'm pretty damn sure that if you bring a defendant into court, and all the defendant can do is groan, drool, and smear feces from their diapers on their face, the trial isn't going to keep going as if everything is fine and dandy, regardless of timing of rulings, regardless of whether the defendant requested a declaration of incompetency, etc.



Why the need to even search for a motive (and guess badly while doing so)? It's a discussion group. We discuss things.

Like members of SCOTUS, I am capable of talking through hypotheticals. I just not in a state right now where I can entertain the idea that they give us answers.

You're right. It is General Discussion, and indeed, you've discussed. While I appreciate your link to a valid definition of incompetence, I just think that, as far as this discussion relates to this former president, the courts won't go there.
So far, his lawyers haven't even brought up the idea, even if his incompetence seems apparent to millions.

IF they do, and some court finds him incompetent, these years of laying out his "private" v "official" acts will still stand as an historical learning experience for the country, in that it will show the lengths authoritarians will go to use the law and courts to stay in permanent power -- from stealing state secrets, lying, defaming, using government as a business for personal enrichment, purging political rivals from government, to using political violence. It will be an historical lesson to the nation on what secures and endangers Americans' freedom.

Thanks for your thoughts.

never allow anyway)

...it wouldn't matter what "angle" Trump's attorneys or Trump himself wants to try. I'm supposing that a year from now (which might be how long it takes for Trump to be in court again after NY) Trump might have deteriorated to the point he simply isn't functioning above the level of a three year-old.

From https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/competency-stand-trial.html:

The NY case could also end in a mistrial (hung jury for instance) and not be retried if there is a finding that retrial would violate double jeopardy or if Bragg tosses in the towel.

Time will tell.

But I've said from the start that I see no way he gets any real consequences. Even if they hand down guilty and a fine, it will never be paid. He will continue on exactly the same. If anything, he just gains more cred with his lunatic base.

I have never wanted to be wrong so much in life.

1. Although TSF will lose the November election, his trials will extend into 2025-26.
2. And he will have deteriorated physically and mentally by the time of the verdicts.
3. And his attorneys will appeal to the jury and the court to take pity on such a wasted and wretched soul.
4. And the jury will find him guilty, but either the judge will grant parole or stay the verdict (meaning, guilty but no punishment).