General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

49. The answer to your first question is - Because the House Democrats asked for it

Tue Nov 26, 2019, 02:06 PM

Nov 2019

The thing that gets me going here, and which some folks take exception to, is that this was a WIN for the House Democrats.

OUR SIDE requested the accelerated schedule in the course of arguing over whether the order should be stayed pending appeal. The House Democrats position was that if the order was going to be be stayed then the appeal should be expedited.

So then, the House Democrats WON that argument, and here we are.

On point two - yes, plenty of time. I think anyone could bang out an argument as to why the Court should consider it. Doesn't mean they will, but it's not hard.

That also goes for the appeal brief itself.

Figure - Trump already argued this to the District Court. The District Court said "no". So on appeal Trump has to file a brief explaining why, in view of existing case law, the District Court got it wrong.

On appeal the Supreme Court, the brief is pretty easy to write, if you think about it. It's the same brief as before, but only has one additional decision to explain away or to argue was wrong - i.e. the appellate court decision in question.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court procedural ruling in one of the Trump tax cases - What you should know [View all] jberryhill Nov 2019 OP

Thanks for this! Nt USALiberal Nov 2019 #1

Could you please stop writing such condescending posts. Many of us know what is going on hlthe2b Nov 2019 #2

I'll do me, thanks jberryhill Nov 2019 #4

Please continue to do so. It helps to understand what various rulings and procedures are.... Lochloosa Nov 2019 #13

I see you edited your post to delete the incendiary language. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #28

I appreciate your post, OP. It helped me with understanding context. Politicub Nov 2019 #35

Thanks for the information....you can't be too basic for some of us, well, me!❤ Karadeniz Nov 2019 #59

TYVM! bluestarone Nov 2019 #5

There is only one condescending post I see here, and it isn't from the OP still_one Nov 2019 #6

Case in point. The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #7

It wasn't condescending. It was addressing a certain group MineralMan Nov 2019 #10

I am objecting to the condescending attack on other DUers, not on any attempt to educate. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #15

Yes, of course you are. MineralMan Nov 2019 #16

But of course you did. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #17

Yup. MineralMan Nov 2019 #19

The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #26

The OP is expressing a frustration shared by me and others, not just about the kneejerk reaction StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #11

So that is your defense for attacking other DUers? I have seen you try to educate, as I and others hlthe2b Nov 2019 #14

He wasn't attacking DUers StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #20

A post on DU that specifically attacks a prior post by a DUer is attacking a DUer Coventina Nov 2019 #24

Actually it'd be a voilation of community standards and not a violation of TOS Kaleva Nov 2019 #29

Thanks for the clarification. Coventina Nov 2019 #32

True Kaleva Nov 2019 #57

The OP has edited his post, so I assume he took my point to heart. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #25

Or maybe he just figured it wasn't worth the drama StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #27

self-created. hlthe2b Nov 2019 #30

Thank you for this. I completely agree with you. Coventina Nov 2019 #21

Thank you for explaining what is likely to happen next. That last time I looked I didn't.... usaf-vet Nov 2019 #36

+1 demmiblue Nov 2019 #44

Very well put. safeinOhio Nov 2019 #3

I get tired of posts that always assume the worst, no matter what the subject wryter2000 Nov 2019 #43

Thanks for posting this blaze Nov 2019 #8

K&R... spanone Nov 2019 #9

Totally hat tip worthy. Much obliged. MFGsunny Nov 2019 #12

Thanks for your clarification. I hadn't looked into that yet. MineralMan Nov 2019 #18

The immediate negative reaction is understandable StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #22

it's the unwillingness to BECOME educated stopdiggin Nov 2019 #55

How very conservative of them ripcord Nov 2019 #45

Thanks! 2naSalit Nov 2019 #23

Thank you for explaining this. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #31

It would also be helpful if DUers didn't call each other "desperately ignorant" Coventina Nov 2019 #33

Maybe so, but immediately knee-jerking without understanding what's going on The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #34

Ignorance is not possessing knowledge ripcord Nov 2019 #46

So if I called you "desperately ignorant" you would be fine with that. Coventina Nov 2019 #48

But the truth is your students are desperately ignorant on the first day of class ripcord Nov 2019 #58

I appreciate your posts pandr32 Nov 2019 #37

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your efforts. /nt BigBearJohn Nov 2019 #38

Thanks for details. Couple of questions Midnightwalk Nov 2019 #39

Under Rule 21, the Court has broad authority to entertain all sorts of motions onenote Nov 2019 #41

Oh it was a motion Midnightwalk Nov 2019 #50

Don't kick us bro, we are not all attorneys. lark Nov 2019 #40

thanks. your post goes a long ways in demonstrating the prejudice stopdiggin Nov 2019 #56

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" mbusby Nov 2019 #42

I'm glad the Supreme Court accelerated the schedule, panader0 Nov 2019 #47

The answer to your first question is - Because the House Democrats asked for it jberryhill Nov 2019 #49

And Trump's lawyers themselves did not object to the House request for an expedited schedule onenote Nov 2019 #52

Procedure confuses people, and ignorance abounds. elleng Nov 2019 #51

I've told you before, and I'll tell you again... Adsos Letter Nov 2019 #53

Recommended. guillaumeb Nov 2019 #54