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
GOP SCOTUS judges tell Trump's lawyer that he should argue justiciability in SCOTUS-case.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/5/6/1942925/-Did-SCOTUS-order-Supplemental-Briefs-in-order-to-Benefit-Trump-s-Case-It-sure-looks-like-it?utm_campaign=trendingIt was after reading VClib’s excellent piece that I came across the news at SCOTUSblog that on April 27 this year, SCOTUS issued this supplemental order:
The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the Court's adjudication of these cases. The briefs, not to exceed 15 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, May 8, 2020.
I had no idea what this meant so I turned to the Opening Arguments podcast with Andrew Torrez and Thomas Smith for a layman-friendly explanation. It was an eye-opener and the ramifications are not pretty.
These two points are crucial to understanding why this supplemental order is pivotal:
the political and justiciability question is a pro-Trump argument (VClib covers this argument in in his story)
yet Trump’s lawyer failed to include this argument in the 65-page brief he presented to SCOTUS.
...
He explains what this order is about.
I want to tell you what this is. This is the conservative howler monkey* contingent at the Supreme Court looking at these briefs and going “Holy clown horn**, even I can’t vote for this. This is so bad and so stupid that it does not pass the Brett Kavanaugh test. It does not pass the Sam Alito test.
...
In 65 pages, Jay Sekulow failed to give the right-wing justices an argument they could support. Worse still, the House Democrats’ case is particularly strong. Therefore, in order to hand Sekulow the only straw worth clutching, the right-wing justices decided to provide him with an argument via a supplemental order.
As Andrew Torrez put it in his inimitable style:
This is the conservative wing of the Court going, “Hey you didn’t argue X but we’d like you to have argued X. And now, will you argue X for us.”
It is absolutely throwing them a life preserver saying, “Hey we’d like to rule that this is non-justiciable so write that up so then we can say that question was presented to us, even though you did not present that question to us.”
The parties and the Solicitor General are directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing whether the political question doctrine or related justiciability principles bear on the Court's adjudication of these cases. The briefs, not to exceed 15 pages, are to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, May 8, 2020.
I had no idea what this meant so I turned to the Opening Arguments podcast with Andrew Torrez and Thomas Smith for a layman-friendly explanation. It was an eye-opener and the ramifications are not pretty.
These two points are crucial to understanding why this supplemental order is pivotal:
the political and justiciability question is a pro-Trump argument (VClib covers this argument in in his story)
yet Trump’s lawyer failed to include this argument in the 65-page brief he presented to SCOTUS.
...
He explains what this order is about.
I want to tell you what this is. This is the conservative howler monkey* contingent at the Supreme Court looking at these briefs and going “Holy clown horn**, even I can’t vote for this. This is so bad and so stupid that it does not pass the Brett Kavanaugh test. It does not pass the Sam Alito test.
...
In 65 pages, Jay Sekulow failed to give the right-wing justices an argument they could support. Worse still, the House Democrats’ case is particularly strong. Therefore, in order to hand Sekulow the only straw worth clutching, the right-wing justices decided to provide him with an argument via a supplemental order.
As Andrew Torrez put it in his inimitable style:
This is the conservative wing of the Court going, “Hey you didn’t argue X but we’d like you to have argued X. And now, will you argue X for us.”
It is absolutely throwing them a life preserver saying, “Hey we’d like to rule that this is non-justiciable so write that up so then we can say that question was presented to us, even though you did not present that question to us.”
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
