They need to be leaked to the press.

Bush v Gore the sequel.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 01:19 PM - Edit history (1)

by over two months as requested by the House? (In fact, in theory the deadline for filing a petition for cert could have been extended until March).


edit: I originally calculated the due date for Trump's petition for certiorari from the date of the DC Circuit's decision (mid October). I should have measured it from the date that the DC Circuit denied Trump's petition for reconsideration (mid-November).

I hope the answer would be that they are going to rule that they have to handed over and that my gut feeling is wrong. I bet Roberts ends up being the swing vote.

And, if so, how much?

In fact, what they have done is to set a very short deadline on the process of requesting them to take it up.

They are not asking for a brief on the appeal, they are ordering the administration to file their petition to the effect of ”why you should take this case”.

It hasn’t even reached the stage of them taking it up.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

was not until mid-February and that it was moved up by more than two months at the request of the House.

edit: I originally calculated the deadline for Trump's petition for certiorari from the date of the DC Circuit's decision in October. I should have calculated it from the date the DC Circuit denied Trump's petition for reconsideration (in mid-November).

By doing so, they signal their intent to protect Trump.

This is a very standard procedure for the Court - it's nothing unusual and not a signal of anything.

Which is not surprising since this was an entirely predictable decision.

I know that there are lots of folks claiming the Court wouldn't review this case. Those assertions never made any sense.

Is that the court has granted a couple of days to file a petition for certiorari.

They actually haven’t agreed to take the case, but they don’t have a petition for cert in front of them to deny if they wanted to.

But, yes, any dispute like this one - directly involving a conflict between two constitutional actors - is going to at least get a review of a cert petition, and obviously is going to get a stay pending review because that bell can’t be unrung.

And no it doesn’t have any effect on these people that every lawyer on DU said this is exactly what would happen.

All you can do is say it again every time the Court issues a stay ...

personally thank you and the others within this string (I'm not sure, but I would venture to believe all involved here are attorneys), it does help someone like myself who is not an attorney but I do try to stay as informed as possible,

reading your posts does help put alot of those things I may not be totally versed on in perspective.

as I continue to read the thread, it brought up another question surrounding whether the court will hear the case or not, that question being the role of the SC Justice who "oversees?" the various districts. Not sure but wasn't this case in SDNY? If so, who would be the Justice who would oversee this district and would their opinion have any more weight that the full court?

than any of the other Justices.

Their role as Circuit Justice is largely administrative. Among other things, the Circuit Justice hears and decides requests for emergency stays. Sometimes, the Justice will refer such issues to the full Court, but they can and usually do dispose of them themselves. But the question of certiorari is taken directly to the full Court and voted on by all of the Justices - the Circuit Justice for the circuit from which the appeal is being brought has no special role or influence on the decision.

They have just become a right wing political body.

Impeach those appointed by drump

I think the system is fair in the sense the president is elected by the whole country,
and therefore should be able to nominate justices.

And then the elected senators have the right to approve or disapprove the nominee.
The president has no constitutional authority to override the senate decision.

Trump was elected by a fraction of the country. And the GOP gave a list to Trump of people they would automatically approve (due solely to their partisan ideology). Not to mention the shenanigans around the stolen seat.

instead of complaining about his electoral win. Unless constitution is modified, we are stuck with electoral.

by the Appellate Court that supported the judge's decision, that despite it being a 2-1 decision, that decision wasn't appealed to the full court?

It was also mentioned that many believed that the ruling judge's opinion was pretty tight and that there didn't seem much room for the SC to even take up the case?

As has been said many times, this wasn't unexpected. It just seems that the only wrinkle in this now is that the SC has sped up the time frame for it's review to see if they are even going to hear the case?

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision. After yesterday, that deadline is moved up until December 5. There is (and never really has been) any doubt that Trump would challenge the decision. And while some people seem convinced the Court will deny the petition for certiorari (once it is filed), I have always thought it was all but certain they will agree to hear the challenge.


edit: I forgot about the Trump petition for reconsideration, which wasn't decided until mid-November. That pushed the date that Trump's petition for certiorari would have been due until mid February (but for the SCOTUS moving the deadline to next week)

that is kind of what I had been understanding,

Aside from not know exactly what a petition for certiorari is (is a petition for cause?), does the court hearing the briefs necessarily mean that the case would be taken up or is it more just a "show me why we should?"

Trump's lawyers will file a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Court to take the appeal. The petition will contain arguments and case law supporting it's request, but there are no briefs and no hearing (oral argument). The Court will decide based on that whether to hear the appeal or to let the lower court ruling stand.

Even if the Court decides to take the case, that's no indication of how they'll eventually rule or cause to be concerned that they'll overturn the appellate court ruling that Trump turn over his taxes. In fact, it's possible the Court could take the case in order to shut Trump's immunity arguments down across the board once and for all.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the appellate court opinion was so carefully and narrowly drafted, the judge left very little for Trump to appeal. And the only issue they can appeal is so clear-cut, it would be difficult for the Supreme Court to find any fault with it. That doesn't mean it won't reverse it or go beyond the narrow ruling - the Court can pretty much do what it wants - but it's unlikely.

The only thing I'd add to your well-stated summary is that the House can, and almost certainly will, file an opposition to the petition for certiorari. While the rules give the House 30 days to file, it is expected that the House will file much sooner than that.

I should have said there aren't briefs in the traditional sense, although the respondent may file a brief in opposition to the petition.

then would that also assume that the House filing would have to be within the same time frame?

Also, and this is somewhat confusing, is it Trump's attorneys filing the briefs or is Mazurs? Or are they one and the same?

Although I don't think Mazars is actively participating -- their position is that they'll comply with the subpoena if the court rules against trump.

He lies (like all repugs) and says he goes by the constitution, but that is a risible lie. Roberts will sell out our country and it's constitution for the Russian Repugs. Seems like they will stop all discovery, violate the constitution again and again and basically make the stealth case that this is now a dictatorship of the rw, while lying about this every second.

But knowing what you are talking about is hardly a pre-requisite for misguided rage.

I'd like to take this opportunity to explain in detail how stupid your OP actually is.

This is Rule 13 of the relevant procedural rules:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf


Rule13. Review on Certiorari : Time for Petitioning

1. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by a state court of last resort or a United States court of appeals (including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) is timely when it is fled with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment. A petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review of a judgment of a lower state court that is subject to discre-tionary review by the state court of last resort is timely when it is fled with the Clerk within 90 days after entry of the order denying discretionary review.

------------

Okay, so, from the time of a Court of Appeals judgment, you get 90 days to file a petition for certiori (your argument as to why the Supreme Court should consider the case).

The judgment in question issued November 14:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779168635/federal-appeals-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-congress-can-subpoena-trump-tax-ret
Federal Appeals Court Allows Congress To Subpoena Trump Tax Returns

November 14, 20193:20 AM ET

So, under the normal rule, that petition would not be due until February 12, 2020.

The Supreme Court, however, has required that the petition be filed by December 5, 2019.

You are upset with this for reasons you don't make clear. You would have instead preferred to wait until February for this case to go forward, instead of next week.

Are you sure you know what side you are on?

Whether you're a man or a woman NO ONE likes mansplaining.

So there we are.

If that is what "nice" is, then yes please count me out.

Much different.

It was the House Democrats who argued for the expedited schedule in the event the order was stayed pending appeal.

The House Democrats won the argument, the Court ruled in our favor, and the OP attacks a Democratic win.

Frankly, that shouldn't even be allowed here. And, you bet, it is disgusting for people on this site of all places, to shit on a Democratic win.

How many years have we already waited?