CNN
So is this just a stall and I'm surprised the SC can just give a block without actually ruling on it yet. But I don't know much about their procedures, maybe this is a normal thing on something they want to look into soon?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Supreme Court temporarily blocks Trump financial documents from going to House on Wednesday
- Thread starter Kaeden
- Start date
So is this just a stall and I'm surprised the SC can just give a block without actually ruling on it yet. But I don't know much about their procedures, maybe this is a normal thing on something they want to look into soon?
It's totally normal to freeze something like this pending an appeal.
Doesn't mean it isn't annoying.
Steve Vladeck @steve_vladeck
A lot of the #SCOTUS headlines are overstating what the Chief Justice did today.
An "administrative" stay is an uncontroversial procedural step that preserves the status quo only until the Justices can vote on the full request to freeze the subpoena pending appeal—prob. Friday.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1196495965215215617 …
Not only does today's order tell us nothing about whether the Court will end up taking this case; it tells us nothing about whether the full Court will agree to put the subpoena on hold past this Friday.
That's why the Chief Justice could enter it on his own—it's housekeeping.
1:46 PM - Nov 18, 2019
A lot of the #SCOTUS headlines are overstating what the Chief Justice did today.
An "administrative" stay is an uncontroversial procedural step that preserves the status quo only until the Justices can vote on the full request to freeze the subpoena pending appeal—prob. Friday.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1196495965215215617 …
Not only does today's order tell us nothing about whether the Court will end up taking this case; it tells us nothing about whether the full Court will agree to put the subpoena on hold past this Friday.
That's why the Chief Justice could enter it on his own—it's housekeeping.
1:46 PM - Nov 18, 2019
And all because democrats allowed McConnell to steal a supreme court appointment.
I've been against packing this whole time but fuck it at this point. Roberts fucking us all over.
She's back and was in conference but read above this is normal procedure it's not a block block just part of the process while both parties file the paper work.
Exactly what did you want the Democrats to do? Blame the Dem voters that couldnt be bothered to show up for midterms.
lol how do you figure that? This will be decided by the supreme court, ultimately, and that the court is now slanted in favor of republicans has everything to do with the seat McConnell stole.
So is this something that the majority of Justices have to agree on just to freeze or is this something that they don't individually weigh in on, at this point? If it is, would really be curious to know what the breakdown was as I assume they also could have simply denied the appeal all together and chose not to hear it by now, right?
This story has 0 to do with seats and who filled them and says absolutely nothing about which way the court is leaning.
Waiting for that hero that just punches McConnell in the face.
It won't go over well in the press and they'll get arrested but it would make me feel better for about twenty minutes at least.
It's very clearly explained in the first and second posts what is going on here. Did you read anything except the thread title?
Also, 'Dems allowed'? What are you on about? Maybe don't post absolute rubbish in these threads in future.
The House agreed to give the Supreme Court a 10 day waiting period to decide if they want to take up the case. This is just the paperwork to make that waiting period official.
How were the supposed to stop him? Majority decides what gets voted on.
I think since he's the Chief Justice he makes the decision, but i dont have a fucking clue actually
Several legal scholars made the argument that, by abdicating their responsibility to advise by refusing to even hold hearings, the senate forfeited their right to consent on Obama's pick, and therefore Obama was no longer legally required to obtain it. Whether or not that would have stood up to legal challenge is up in the air since I don't think such a thing has ever happened (and also I'm not a constitutional lawyer so my opinion holds little weight) but it would likely have gone to the supreme court and I have to imagine that it would have gone Obama's way, given the composition of the court at the time.
There's little voters can do to change the composition of the senate due to how senators are elected, and it has everything to do with that.
A Republican senate with a Democratic President winning in 2016 whose nominee they refuse to put forward leaves the court at 4/4 as opposed to the 5/4-conservative balance we have now. Possibly 4/3 in the unlikely event Kennedy still steps down under Clinton. And significantly more time to attempt that completely unprecedented maneuver you're arguing they could have tried.
So yes. The voters.
(Also, voters have all the power to change the composition of the Senate. Conservative voters being over represented doesn't make them not voters).
No it doesn't.....this stay is an administrative one that is normal and expected.
Read the first couple of posts, people.
I wasn't talking about this particular stay. Like, at all. And I didn't need to read the first few posts (I did anyway), because I read the article.
Won't stop folks from reacting to a headline and not reading the article
If you were responding to me saying "moreover, this has nothing to do with that" you were.
Then I think we might have been talking past each other, and that's probably on me. I understand that this particular thing has nothing to do with the current composition of the court, I was more looking past it towards the end game, so to speak. My apologies for causing the confusion; I probably shouldn't post while trying to pretend to pay attention in meetings lol
The Dems didn't have a majority. Dem voters seem to not care that much about the senate or SCOTUS justices, though. As shown by general voter turnout in off year elections. There was nothing Obama could do with a Dem minority in the Senate...
Senate votes are also statewide elections and not subject to gerrymandering concerns. Relies on pure popular vote and turnout.
All the tax returns are going to show is that Trump is massively in debt and that he doesn't pay taxes
The Senate needs to consent to SC appointments.
The Supreme Court would never have given Obama the right to unilaterally appoint judges.
Who were these "legal scholars" that pitched such a ridiculous idea?
Im very interested in this too. I have never heard such a thing anywhere else until now. Smells like nonsense, but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
I asked for your specific legal reasoning as to why it's "nonsense" and you provided none, but I'll play along anyway because I figured this question was coming. Given that this was 3 years ago my recall isn't perfect and the only article I can remember off the top of my head was by Gregory L. Diskant, a senior partner at the law firm of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler and a member of the national governing board of Common Cause.
And as a reminder, I never said Obama could just do this and be done with it. It would certainly end up in the Supreme Court, given that nothing like it has ever happened (because what McConnell did was also unprecedented), and who knows how the court would rule. But this dude who quite obviously knows more about the law than you or I seems to think there's solid legal reasoning here.
The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. If they fail to perform that duty, what makes you think they still retain any powers granted to them by the section of the constitution they are openly refusing to adhere to?
So, again, what is your specific legal reasoning for why this is "total nonsense"?
The fact that you can only find one person that suggested this speaks volumes.
I don't think you understand the complete upending of the balance of power such a move would mean. It would allow Presidents to appoint whoever they want to the Supreme Court as long as they have the majority in the Senate, as the President can just instruct his party to not bring the matter to a vote.
So you have no actual legal argument for why this is nonsense, and furthermore did not even understand what this guy was saying. Awesome.
At no point have I suggested that the president can simply elect whoever he wants so long as he has a majority in the senate. I don't even know where the hell you got that from. Furthermore, since republicans have already done away with the filibuster for supreme court nominees, so long as a president has a majority in the senate, this route would be completely unnecessary, because all he would need is that simple majority to confirm his appointee.
The point in that article is that the Senate under McConnell specifically refused to perform its constitutional duty, and therefore waived its constitutional rights.
That does not mean that the president could just appoint whoever the hell he wants to. It means that the senate would have to openly and continually refuse to do its job before this was ever even remotely applicable. Did you even read the article?
And again, because apparently I can't stress this enough - I'm not saying this would have definitely and ultimately been decided in Obama's favor. He may well have lost based on the arguments presented; we can't ever know for sure because something like this has never happened.
I'd be happy to go out and look for more examples, because I know they're out there; unlike you I guess, I don't have instant recall of all material I read several years ago, so it'd take work because digging up three year old articles on the internet takes time. I'd be willing to invest the time if you'd even try having a good faith discussion, but you're apparently not interested in that. You went for a drive by post, refused to answer a pretty simple question, and when I provided what you asked your choice was to deflect with some nonsense.
When that changes let me know and we can pick this back up. Or don't, I don't really care either way ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yeah. They are going to be really boring to the common person.
As far as we can tell the justices still care about the integrity of the court. I'm not even convinced they'll take the case.
It would honestly depend on whether or not Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh recused themselves. From what I understand they're under no legal obligation to do so. If they did, however, it could easily go against Trump.