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
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Eastman believed Clarence would back his theories to overthrow the government (Original Post) deminks Mar 2022 OP
Thomas, NEVER should have been on SCOTUS! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2022 #1
Eastman clerked for Thomas NightWatcher Mar 2022 #2
TY empedocles Mar 2022 #4
I'm sure he would gab13by13 Mar 2022 #3
Pence's aide testified that Eastman said there were 2 justices who might support him deminks Mar 2022 #5
So what, you say, 2 justices would not have prevailed if others did not go in with them. deminks Mar 2022 #6
A clear and present danger. Sneederbunk Mar 2022 #7

deminks

(11,014 posts)
5. Pence's aide testified that Eastman said there were 2 justices who might support him
Sat Mar 26, 2022, 07:13 PM
Mar 2022

Thomas, and one other he doesn't remember who Eastman said.

I think the other may be Alito. Krazy Kraaken lady lawyer said there was a plan to bring the Gomert case to Alito who was already to go with it. I have not forgotten this. Yeah, it came from Krazy Kraaken lady, but a stopped clock is right twice a day.

https://www.newsweek.com/sidney-powell-drags-justice-samuel-alito-supreme-court-january-6-mess-1632896

deminks

(11,014 posts)
6. So what, you say, 2 justices would not have prevailed if others did not go in with them.
Sat Mar 26, 2022, 07:32 PM
Mar 2022

The fear, I say in reply, is that Thomas or Alito would have used the secretive shadow docket, which does not require a vote or deliberations, or written majority or minority reports.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/31/supreme-court-us-cases-shadow-docket

snip

Welcome to the “shadow docket”, the so-called emergency proceedings that now constitute the majority of the supreme court’s business. Minimally argued, rarely justified and decided without transparency, shadow docket orders were once a tool the court used to dispense with unremarkable and legally unambiguous matters. To have an issue addressed on the shadow docket, a litigant has to apply for “emergency relief” – usually to stop a decision against them from a lower court from going into effect while appeals proceed. Traditionally, applicants would need to demonstrate that they would suffer “irreparable harm” if their petition wasn’t granted immediately. So one historical use of the shadow docket has been in federal death penalty cases, where the court has used the emergency proceeding to affirm or deny requests for stays of execution.

But in recent years the court has largely dispensed with any meaningful application of the irreparable harm standard, and instead has entertained emergency relief petitions from more and more litigants, issuing shadow docket rulings on increasingly significant and controversial legal questions without the rigor or transparency that such issues demand.


end snip
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Eastman believed Clarence...