Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Eyeball_Kid

(7,432 posts)
3. The SC won't vote along party lines. This case speaks to more universal issues.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 07:54 PM
Feb 2017

If it's not unanimous against Trumpy, it will be 7-1 or 6-2 at the worst. The SC is very well aware that Trumpy is trying to bully the Courts. They'll shove a lesson down his throat.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
8. I was talking "worst case scenario". I was referring to what the Orange Turd will be told.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:04 PM
Feb 2017

If he revisits his "Second Amendment solution" threat, we will be in business.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
5. Correct..the scotus decides what cases they will hear.. -
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 07:55 PM
Feb 2017

Now..some things start to become more clear..especially with Flake and McCain wanting a 12th circuit court and split up the 9th...

That way they could fill the bench with Republicans..and rein in Washington State


Thanks to Don Viejo earlier - I would love to see the pop #'s and land mass they would create with a 12th..versus the 9th now....

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1016177272

Stallion

(6,474 posts)
6. Another Good Point-Usually they Like to wait Until Other Circuits Weigh In
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 07:57 PM
Feb 2017

...the SCOTUS generally is more likely to take a case where there is an actual conflict among the Circuit Court of Appeals

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,732 posts)
7. It looks like they can take a direct appeal from this order.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:02 PM
Feb 2017

The relevant statute, 28 U.S. Code § 1253, says: "Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges." The 3-judge panel treated the appeal from the TRO as the equivalent of an appeal from a preliminary injunction, as the original order had no expiration date. If it's effectively a preliminary injunction, this statute should apply, and the government could make a direct appeal rather than having to petition for a writ of certiorari as in most cases.

 

KingCharlemagne

(7,908 posts)
10. What made Robart's original TRO the equivalent of an injunction? I thought both
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:13 PM
Feb 2017

sides had already agreed to calendaring for the hearing on a Preliminary Injunction as early as next week.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,732 posts)
11. The panel explains on p. 7 of the order.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:16 PM
Feb 2017
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf

We are satisfied that in the extraordinary circumstances
of this case, the district court’s order possesses the qualities
of an appealable preliminary injunction. The parties
vigorously contested the legal basis for the TRO in written
briefs and oral arguments before the district court. The
district court’s order has no expiration date, and no hearing
has been scheduled. Although the district court has recently
scheduled briefing on the States’ motion for a preliminary
injunction, it is apparent from the district court’s scheduling
order that the TRO will remain in effect for longer than
fourteen days. In light of the unusual circumstances of this
case, in which the Government has argued that emergency
relief is necessary to support its efforts to prevent terrorism,
we believe that this period is long enough that the TRO
should be considered to have the qualities of a reviewable
preliminary injunction.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,732 posts)
13. Thank you.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:25 PM
Feb 2017
I could be wrong, though; somebody else claimed they can't take a direct appeal because the panel didn't resolve the constitutional questions. We shall see.

Stinky The Clown

(67,808 posts)
14. That would be my guess, too. And even if Grouch gets on, it will still be 6-3.
Thu Feb 9, 2017, 08:43 PM
Feb 2017

That's a pretty sound drubbing for the shitgibbon.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Headed for the Supreme Co...