General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLawrence Tribe on Lawrence O'Donnell: Likely SCOTUS will not hear Trump's tax returns appeal AT ALL
That's about it, not more to share. Said that if they ruled on it, Trump would lose, but it is more likely that they won't hear it at all.
elleng
(130,908 posts)RBG will decide first, whether the Court should hear it, and trump etc. will likely seek review of THAT decision, whether or not to hear the matter, to the entire Court.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)RBG doesn't decide first whether the Court will hear it.
Trump's attorneys will file a petition for certiorari with the full Court. If four of the nine justices agree to grant cert, the full Court will take up the appeal. RBG plays no special role in this and has no greater say than the other eight justices.
You may be conflating RBG's responsibility as Circuit Justice for the Second Circuit with her responsibility as a member of the Court. Each circuit has its own Circuit Justice who oversees a number of administrative matters for the circuit and who hears emergency matters, like requests for stays, etc. A circuit justice can and sometimes does refer such matters to the full Court. But petitions for certiorari do not go through them but go straight to the full Court.
RBG is the Second Circuit's Circuit Justice and, as such, she plays this role for them. But the Circuit Justice's role is completely separate from their role as a member of the Court and no Circuit Justice has any independent decision-making power over whether the Court takes up an appeal.
elleng
(130,908 posts)The STAY was the issue Tribe discussed.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Court takes the case on appeal.
bluestarone
(16,941 posts)Why did the State of NY agree to 10 day appeal?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Can you elaborate? Thanks.
bluestarone
(16,941 posts)a 10 day delay in enforcing the subpoena?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But I haven't heard they did this following the most recent ruling.
They agreed to the stay previously for good reason. Among other things, the appellate court no doubt would have granted the stay anyway, but Vance and his team got some concessions from the Trump lawyers in return for their agreement.
bluestarone
(16,941 posts)Prosecutors agreed to delay enforcement of the subpoena to Trumps longtime accounting firm if the presidents lawyers move quickly to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. Under the agreement between prosecutors and the president, Trumps attorneys have 10 days in which to ask the Supreme Court to step in. Any appeal must ask the court to hear the case this term, meaning before the end if June.
Trumps attorneys will likely ask the Supreme Court to leave the stay in place while the court decides whether to accept the case.
A spokesman for Vances office declined to comment.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They didn't agree again to a stay, but the requirement that Trump's attorneys move quickly to request an appeal from the Supreme Court - and that they ask the case be decided in this term - was part of the deal when they agreed to a stay of the lower court opinion.
Some people complained about that then, but it was a smart move by Vance and his team.
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2019/10/21/manhattan-da-vance-trump-agree-to-further-delay-in-enforcement-of-grand-jury-subpoena/?slreturn=20191005121435
bluestarone
(16,941 posts)ritapria
(1,812 posts)will decide whether to take the case ? ...Weeks? A Month?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They can decide when they want.
But I think they'll want to get this disposed of pretty quickly, so I lean toward them either granting or denying cert within weeks.
But that's just a guess ...
onenote
(42,703 posts)Supreme Court Rule 22 provides that a request for the Supreme Court to stay the lower court decision must be directed to RBG as the justice assigned to the Second Circuit; if she denies it, the applicant can submit a renewed request to any justice he/she chooses, although renewed requests are "not favored" according to the SCOTUS rules. What often happens in a high-profile case is that the justice receiving the initial request (or a justice receiving a renewed request) will refer the request to the full court to decide.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)doc03
(35,338 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Some things are simply not a matter of ideology.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)And while I have all kinds of issues with Roberts, I do believe that he cares about and respects the Court and also is concerned about his own legacy as Chief Justice. He doesn't want to go down as a lackey to Trump and Kavannaugh.
hvn_nbr_2
(6,486 posts)I think that's his motivation in cases where he's the fifth vote for a sensible ruling.
I somewhat whimsically believe that every now and then Roberts gets a 2:00 a.m. visitation from the Ghost of Historians Future, who shows him snippets from future history books with phrases like "Roger Taney and John Roberts," "Roberts and Taney," "Taney and Roberts," and so on. Then for a little while, he does some sensible things.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I was going to say that he doesn't want to go down in history as another Roger Taney, but thought the reference was too obscure.
Obviously, it's not all that obscure - at least not to you.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)Damn you guys are knowledgeable! Thanks for my history lesson of the day.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Roger Taney is so discredited that his bust was removed from the main room of the old Supreme Court courtroom in the U.S Capitol to the robing room because he just didn't deserve the same place of honor the other Chief Justices had earned.
And his statue was recently moved from the Maryland Capitol grounds because the state leaders acknowledged how inappropriate it is to pay tribute to this man.
This man who used his power as a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to proclaim and make it the law that black people could never be American citizens because "they had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." And, in so doing, branded onto black people a badge of inferiority that took a Civil War, three constitutional amendments, countless pieces of legislation, and more 150 years to even begin to eradicate - and which still haunts this nation to this day.
John Roberts probably has nightmares about being a modern day Roger Taney - a Chief Justice who besmirched his seat and allowed a craven mindset to permeate the Court, its jurisprudence and precedent - and I think he's going to try to avoid that fate.
NewJeffCT
(56,828 posts)I don't think it would be a 5-4 decision. I could see 6-3 or 7-2 with only Kavanaugh and Thomas voting against, and maybe one other.
CaptainTruth
(6,592 posts)My only question is, how quickly will that decision be made? A week or two? A month or two?
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)...I don't have an answer for you on the time, but my educated guess is that every judge on the SCOTUS is seeing the same headlines we're all seeing, including Sekulow announcing that he wants it to go there, and I can't imagine them wanting to be wrapped up in this any longer than is necessary.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But something else occurred to me.
What if the Court, having watched the mockery Trump is trying to make of the courts, the presidency, and Congress, and knowing full well that he's going to do his best to drag everything out with his bs "unlimited temporary presidential immunity" claims, decides to shut his ass down once and for all by taking this case and very quickly ruling that the president CAN be investigated (and maybe even indicted and prosecuted) during his presidency, and issuing an opinion that pretty much takes care of all of is raggedy arguments in several of the pending cases?
Not predicting, but how cool would that be?
triron
(22,003 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But I suspect were not that lucky..
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)edhopper
(33,580 posts)this SCOTUS no longer follows the law.
See gerrymandering and voters rights decisions.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)They just often interpret it differently than we would like.
edhopper
(33,580 posts)Unless you want to "interpret" the Constitution as not containing the Rights of voters.
Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts. But the fact that such gerrymandering is incompatible with democratic principles does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
Justice Roberts.
CanonRay
(14,101 posts)they won't touch this with a ten foot pole. If.
SWBTATTReg
(22,125 posts)Provide the tax returns.
We have all seen this repeatedly, over the years (DUers), with the 'I'll appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court!' remarks, etc., when in fact they only hear cases where a certain component of that particular law raises an issue w/ with wording in the Constitution, it's Amendments, or established law (US law (the wording is confusing, or something like that)). This is my understanding and it makes sense.
Trying to delay the whole process is the only rationale I can see why defendants do this (for the most part, there are legitimate reasons too that occur where appealing to the court would be of benefit). Rump must be truly nervous about showing his returns...I suspect (based on previous tidbits of information that has recently tickled out) that quite a few discrepancies are going to be found in these returns...
lettucebe
(2,336 posts)The lower courts have all agreed. End of story.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)officials revealing their taxes) to satisfy the whining of one sociopathic narcissist? I don't think they want to grab hold of that tar baby. SCOTUS justices are always aware of their place in history.