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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ET Awful

(24,788 posts)
18. Thanks. I was just about to say something similar (sans the tweet).
Mon Nov 18, 2019, 01:22 PM
Nov 2019

The USSC will put an administrative hold on any case submitted to it to allow both sides to present their filings. This is prior to them making a decision as to whether to hear the case or not. From a strictly legal perspective (putting aside personal opinions) You can't let the lower court decision stand and force the release of the docs (or award of monetary damages or enforcement of a statute/law, etc.) while the appeals process is ongoing, otherwise you risk irreparable harm to one party or the other.

The process requires the administrative hold, then the review of filings from both parties, then the decision as to whether to take the case. If they decline to take the case, the lower court decision stands. If they accept the case, further hearings take place and the injunction remains in place until the final decision.

Recommendations

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

As expected, CJ Roberts issues temporary stay in Trump v. Mazars, meaning accounting firm doesn't... mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #1
This isn't unexpected. djg21 Nov 2019 #9
Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #11
It means the SC will review the case, right? California_Republic Nov 2019 #12
No. djg21 Nov 2019 #14
They have a Twitter account too, as does Amy Howe, one of their prolific writers. mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #22
No, it means that they are getting ready to consider whether to review it. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #16
Oh boy DENVERPOPS Nov 2019 #30
Thanks for the heads up! Dennis Donovan Nov 2019 #15
I knew it his f----g court is his insurance policy. nt doc03 Nov 2019 #2
+1 ancianita Nov 2019 #17
Both sides indicated they were fine with exactly this order. It says nothing about onenote Nov 2019 #21
Justices Gorsuck and Boof are doing their jobs. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #33
Yes, along with all the other Justices. This is a routine administrative order The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #34
The talking heads I heard said the SCOTUS doc03 Nov 2019 #41
They shouldn't (but then, I didn't think they should or would hear Bush v. Gore, either). The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #42
Before the predictable hissy-fit about the evil Supreme Court is posted The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #3
Thx for weighing in!! Thekaspervote Nov 2019 #6
+1 Mike 03 Nov 2019 #8
Thanks. I was just about to say something similar (sans the tweet). ET Awful Nov 2019 #18
Too late. Some already are saying this shows the court is intent on saving Trump onenote Nov 2019 #23
Lots of knee-jerking is performed by folks who don't know how the process works, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #28
And Justice Roberts has been sooooooo concerned about the politicization of the court... Raster Nov 2019 #4
See above. It's an administrative stay giving the lawyers time to file briefs. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #7
I see this and changed my post. Raster Nov 2019 #25
Better yet, that they don't take the case at all. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #26
Yes, that would be optimum, allowing the lower courts judgement to stand. Raster Nov 2019 #27
Did I just hear Pete Williams cilla4progress Nov 2019 #5
I haven't read it yet, but I believe the committee agreed to a 10 day stay beginning the 20th herding cats Nov 2019 #10
The Circuit Court of Appeals ruling was scheduled to take affect this Wednesday ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #20
Trump's lawyers already have filed onenote Nov 2019 #24
I agree, that's why I wrote ... aggiesal Nov 2019 #36
Congressional oversight is on the chopping block. Mz Pip Nov 2019 #13
Don't jump to conclusions. The court hasn't even agreed to hear the case yet. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #19
It IS on the chopping block ArizonaLib Nov 2019 #39
Not jumping to conclusions. Mz Pip Nov 2019 #40
I think they may refuse to hear it just to preserve the SC as seemingly impartial. truthisfreedom Nov 2019 #29
I hope so. dewsgirl Nov 2019 #31
"consider arguments" Maxheader Nov 2019 #32
This stay was supported by the House committee onenote Nov 2019 #35
I wonder if the court will interfere with the House which would be a violation of the Constitution. cstanleytech Nov 2019 #37
So do you agree with Judge Rao onenote Nov 2019 #43
Nope I don't agree as the court is supposed to be one of the checks and cstanleytech Nov 2019 #44
This is not a big deal Gothmog Nov 2019 #38
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court temporarily...»Reply #18