tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post8026669418744660866..comments2024-03-28T23:47:08.912-05:00Comments on Althouse: "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2389994683221193672018-02-18T05:14:09.119-06:002018-02-18T05:14:09.119-06:00Look at all the rights discovered in the constitut...Look at all the rights discovered in the constitution. The court showed no such concern. Heck, I am sure Greenhouse took out her broom to sweep the path in front of the hurling curling stone of a SCOTUS. Why this reticence now?DEEBEEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16235176776968497303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66598983490921932292018-02-15T22:06:44.055-06:002018-02-15T22:06:44.055-06:00The Supreme Court should announce a summary revers...The Supreme Court should announce a summary reversal of the ruling, stating "we don't need to be briefed on this issue, because it is a solid matter of law that no Executive Order can ever bind a future President's Executive Orders".<br /><br />This is so obvious that the Supreme Court should make the announcement immediately and reprimand the lower courts for violating such a basic premise of law. Otherwise the next round of this judge made legislation will be that Congress can't change, rescind or otherwise modify any law a previous Congress passed that a district judge doesn't want modified or rescinded.<br /><br />An honest district court should have dismissed the complaint on the spot.cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73088235448706319172018-02-15T18:14:10.453-06:002018-02-15T18:14:10.453-06:00It is imperative. It is imperative TODAY -- it wa...It is imperative. It is imperative TODAY -- it was imperative a year ago -- to smack down <b>hard</b> all these district court judges that are abusing their power in ignoring the law and imposing their own dictates not only in their own districts, but asserting power over the entire country.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07575021285669012791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82979175492158963012018-02-15T17:41:46.156-06:002018-02-15T17:41:46.156-06:00Greenhouse has her agenda, but it's unlikely t...Greenhouse has her agenda, but it's unlikely to make any difference in what the SCOTUS justices do. It's easy to see them granting a stay of the lower court injunction until such time as a petition for certiorari is presented and acted on by SCOTUS following a decision by the DC Circuit. If the lower court injunction is stayed, no need for SCOTUS to get into the act now. That's also essentially what SCOTUS has done on the other immigration cases, challenging the travel ban.Richard Dolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12735773524374061429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24751295395975755432018-02-15T17:26:18.884-06:002018-02-15T17:26:18.884-06:00In all situations, an Althouse trumps a Greenhouse...In all situations, an Althouse trumps a Greenhouse.Dannohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03570137229911763191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80064225569656165012018-02-15T14:53:53.537-06:002018-02-15T14:53:53.537-06:00Trump lost a lot of leverage with regards to DACA ...Trump lost a lot of leverage with regards to DACA and immigration with the recent court decision. Greenhouse is afraid that Trump might get that leverage back by way of the Supreme Court. She's using her platform at the Times to lobby for her preferred outcome.JaimeRobertohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12080380710232902631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-24494613454851651532018-02-15T12:53:19.012-06:002018-02-15T12:53:19.012-06:00Greenhouse is transparent- no question. I think S...Greenhouse is transparent- no question. I think SCOTUS will deny the petition to jump over the DC Circuit, but I also think they should take the petition.Yancey Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16427042729449397357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-73466046333667136972018-02-15T12:36:09.930-06:002018-02-15T12:36:09.930-06:00That shouldn't affect anyone on the Court, but...<i>That shouldn't affect anyone on the Court, but it could.</i><br /><br />Just the less-than-wise Latina.Big Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831645119853118904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-12922449557424906072018-02-15T12:35:28.141-06:002018-02-15T12:35:28.141-06:00rhhardin wrote "Obviously the electoral colle...rhhardin wrote "Obviously the electoral college should also appoint the judges, if they're going to take over the presidency."<br /><br />In this situation, first the Executive decided to assume a power specifically granted to Congress, and then the Judicial branch decided the Executive could not reverse the error. It is facially bizarre. <br /><br />I would say if the SC does not intervene then the people need to intervene to overturn lifetime tenure for the lower judges, and probably impose a 20 year term limit for all new Supreme Court judges. I've had it. MaxedOutMamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08011469804162511617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-55948230552110829372018-02-15T12:32:46.568-06:002018-02-15T12:32:46.568-06:00Thanks for answering my question, Ann.
Thanks for answering my question, Ann.<br />Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00466932184113943306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62576089093941692572018-02-15T12:24:43.871-06:002018-02-15T12:24:43.871-06:00I understand an agree with Greenhouse's concer...I understand an agree with Greenhouse's concerns. So I offer a simple plan for SC action that should deal with the whole "empty stage" problem:<br /><br />The Supreme Court should announce a summary reversal of the ruling, stating "we don't need to be briefed on this issue, because it is a solid matter of law that no Executive Order can ever bind a future President's Executive Orders".<br /><br />This would allow everyone to negotiate in a clear understanding of the situation, and keep the Supreme Court from being upstaged by anything Congress and the President agree to.<br /><br />win-win!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-75415261704293347662018-02-15T12:22:30.844-06:002018-02-15T12:22:30.844-06:00"I don't see the problem."
Here, le..."I don't see the problem."<br /><br />Here, let me help you out;<br /><br />"Writes Linda Greenhouse in the NYT." Jupiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13008508862847561845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-145191712058114372018-02-15T12:18:19.042-06:002018-02-15T12:18:19.042-06:00Well, no one has to see this the way I see it, but...Well, no one has to see this the way I see it, but I think if Scalia were still alive he would rhetorically pack this lower court judgment into a tennis ball and then swat it around the Supreme Court with amazing vigor until it splintered into ignominious fragments of illogic. <br /><br />I believe that this is a powers case, and that SC would be well advised to take it and deal with the situation before things get even more out of hand. <br /><br />For a court to overturn an executive decision that overturned a previous executive decision (which was bound to end up in court) as having no public purpose smacks of several things, but mostly of judicial overreach and interference with the political process. The court system has expansive powers in our evolved political system of checks and powers, and the key to keeping that power is responsible use of such power.<br /><br />The reason that I see this as a powers question is that one can either see the previous executive action as a permissible use of executive power or as an encroachment on Congressional power. If one assumes the first, than to claim that a court may decide that one Executive may do another may not undo is judicial overreach in the extreme - the court is arrogating Executive power to itself. If one assumes the second, then WTF? We find ourselves in "Really, dude?" territory. <br /><br />The arguments advanced to support the "no public purpose" stuff don't pass muster. It is by definition the right of the Executive to decide what actions are constitutional uses of Executive power. If the Executive exceeds its power by action, the courts by definition have the right to say so. But if the Executive decides not to use some power that the court thinks it may rightly use, the Court does not have the right to force the Executive to act. That is an assumption of Executive power. By definition the right to act also comprises the right not to act. <br /><br />If the Supreme Court is not willing to restrain such a judicial seizure of power, then I suspect the judicial branch's powers will be constrained by legislation and popular fiat. Very few people in this country REALLY want to be governed by a board of unelected individuals with lifetime tenure. <br /><br />At this point, I am nearing the point at which I would support amending the Constitution to knock back some of this judicial overreach, and I'm probably not the only one. I wonder if altering lower court terms to a ten-year term, renewable upon the assent of the Executive with consent by the House of Representatives, would not fix a lot of ills? I don't want either the legislative or the executive branches to escape judicial review, but I also don't think that what we have seen in the last year is viable - the courts are now the branch that needs to stopped from destroying the constitutional framework. MaxedOutMamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08011469804162511617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7087116361166286562018-02-15T12:12:58.351-06:002018-02-15T12:12:58.351-06:00"the months it would surely take the court to..."the months it would surely take the court to issue a decision"<br /><br />Maybe, but or the two previous cases Greenhouse cited, Nixon took less than two months from filing to decision and Iran took less than one.Rabelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02612585516401001803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87129188738492097532018-02-15T11:58:28.615-06:002018-02-15T11:58:28.615-06:00Greenhouse is just stretching to find a way to sup...Greenhouse is just stretching to find a way to support the position she has adopted for emotional reasons. I am not using "emotional" as pejorative, you could say "policy" reasons--but not legal analysis.<br /><br />If the Administration believes and can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that allowing people from targeted countries and groups into the country present a clear and present danger, it would appear they meet the standard. If not, not.<br /><br />I would think the Court would be more embarrassed by a terror attack carried out by someone whom the EO would otherwise have excluded, than Congress later passing a law that is in some way contrary to the decision they made based on the law as it then was.<br /><br />But, when Trump Derangement is in play, logic ain't what it used to be.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13617687006180956861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38026539982127981812018-02-15T11:52:47.967-06:002018-02-15T11:52:47.967-06:00The Supreme Court must end this abhorrent behavior...The Supreme Court must end this abhorrent behavior by hack judges ASAP. If allowed to stand it is another sign that the Republic is on its deathbed. Other signs include:<br /><br />The refusal of one party to accept the results of presidential elections. 2016 was the third election that large numbers of Democrats refused to accept. At some point a losing Democrat incumbent will refuse to leave office and will do so with the support of the MSM and bureaucracy.<br /><br />The weoponizing of the bureaucracy to be used against political opponents when in power and as a fifth column when out of power.<br /><br />AMDGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479008337380091194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87222806585875939112018-02-15T11:25:09.898-06:002018-02-15T11:25:09.898-06:00Imagine that Hillary Clinton had been elected Pres...Imagine that Hillary Clinton had been elected President and then had appointed Scalia's replacement on the US Supreme Court.<br /><br />If that had happened, then all these crazy judges would be being upheld by the Supreme Court.Mike Sylwesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09987402330015664312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69929883783274988542018-02-15T11:24:28.700-06:002018-02-15T11:24:28.700-06:00"Is a Supreme Court justice allowed to respon..."Is a Supreme Court justice allowed to respond to an article like this, either formally or informally? Is there a legal standard that prevents a response, or is it simply against custom?"<br /><br />A Supreme Court justice, if she wanted to, could take out a full-page ad saying the president is an inhabitant of cloudcuckooland, and, short of impeachment, there's nothing anyone could do about it.Larvellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627555884168845618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-58742021710339329122018-02-15T11:19:47.814-06:002018-02-15T11:19:47.814-06:00Shorter Greenhouse: I'm concerned the Supreme...Shorter Greenhouse: I'm concerned the Supreme Court will side with the administration, but I'm not concerned about the 9th Circuit doing so.Larvellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17627555884168845618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62839499100418331102018-02-15T11:15:24.338-06:002018-02-15T11:15:24.338-06:00The Constitution, the People, and unPlanned Americ...The Constitution, the People, and unPlanned Americans are at risk.<br /><br />Not to mention the victims of social justice adventures and other first-order forcings of mass emigration.<br /><br />Perhaps another round of prosecutorial discretion and keeping everyone, Americans, immigrants, and aliens, in limbo.n.nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252447117532342957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67642448349847012052018-02-15T11:09:12.411-06:002018-02-15T11:09:12.411-06:00The issue that the SCOTUS needs to urgently handle...The issue that the SCOTUS needs to urgently handle is how much overt politicization the third branch can stand and still maintain its role as Interpreter of the Law. While judges making rulings based on their political priorities is nothing new, the “law may say the president can do X, <i>but Trump!</i>” breaks ground that the SCOTUS and anyone with respect for the Article 3 branch should feel uncomfortable standing on.<br /><br />They should not only take the case but provide at least dicta admonishing judges to retain even a tenuous link to the letter of the Law.Rigelsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10803125009909690659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77449381829388816882018-02-15T10:59:32.068-06:002018-02-15T10:59:32.068-06:00"I have often heard it said that appellate de..."I have often heard it said that appellate decisions are binding only within the jurisdiction of the circuit. How is it that a district judge can assert national jurisdiction?"<br /><br />Because he has jurisdiction over the case and the defendant is subject to the court's judgment. If there were another case and the question were about following the precedent set in the early case, then you'd say it was binding only in that jurisdiction. Note the need for a Supreme Court decision so it could be binding to all of the circuits. <br /><br />"Question for Ann, and any lawyers in the room: Is a Supreme Court justice allowed to respond to an article like this, either formally or informally? Is there a legal standard that prevents a response, or is it simply against custom?"<br /><br />The SCt Justices don't talk about pending cases, by their own practice, and there's pressure on them to recuse themselves if they even approach such a thing. I think I remember Scalia once recusing himself because of something he said, and then he was often pushed to recuse himself. <br /><br />"I would love to see a Trump-like justice push back against media bias or misinformation. But perhaps that would do more harm than good, by removing the pretense of objectivity."<br /><br />They find some ways. There's an art to it... always involving portraying themselves as neutral.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-37232300697136088172018-02-15T10:54:02.942-06:002018-02-15T10:54:02.942-06:00This isn’t a column. It’s an open letter from Gre...This isn’t a column. It’s an open letter from Greenhouse to John Roberts. Roberts caved in the Obamacare case and a few years later Trump is president. Perhaps Roberts didn’t learn his lesson to stay out of politics. He’s just a lawyer. He’s not that smartmcculloughhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03168402889404727565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42624748326993343622018-02-15T10:47:09.463-06:002018-02-15T10:47:09.463-06:00Is President Trump actually doing anything to kill...Is President Trump actually doing anything to kill DACA?<br /><br />My understanding is that all he needs to do is nothing and it expires next month. <br /><br />So is the court actually requiring him to do something to prevent expiration? <br /><br />Seems to me that he could say "president Obama is the smartest man in the world. Who am I to disagree with him on expiration of DACA? I'll just stand pat.<br /><br />John Henry Darkislandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11179670958768611172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-62765405304811731092018-02-15T10:39:00.218-06:002018-02-15T10:39:00.218-06:00This is why I DESPISE the Nevertrumpers. They wan...This is why I DESPISE the Nevertrumpers. They wanted Hillary to win - which would've meant a defacto Chief Justice Kagan and rule by the 5 liberals.<br /><br />Result: DACA would be enshrined in the Constitution and ANY attempt to enforce the immigration laws would've been stopped by Judicial Fiat. It may end up that way anyway - but we all know how the 4 liberals will vote on this before it even goes to the SCOTUS.<br /><br />The Judiciary has gone crazy in its attempt to stop Trump. Our only hope is the SCOTUS will see reason.rcoceanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17102201338319611538noreply@blogger.com