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

Latest Breaking News

onenote

(46,119 posts)

26. It does nothing of the sort

Reply to ancianita (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 18, 2019, 02:23 PM

Nov 2019

Both parties asked for the same thing: a temporary stay of the appeals court mandate until the House had a chance to respond to Trump's request for a longer stay.

And that's exactly what Justice Roberts, acting as the justice assigned to the DC Circuit, granted. It is as surprising as the sun coming up in the morning.

Link to the order: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111819zr_6537.pdf

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

House panel agrees to temporary stay of Trump subpoena to allow Supreme Court to weigh in on financi [View all] mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 OP

99% sure SC will not take it up, beachbumbob Nov 2019 #1

If they take it up Miguelito Loveless Nov 2019 #5

I'm almost equally certain they will grant cert. onenote Nov 2019 #10

99% sure SCROTUS will act to protect Trump. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #11

Roberts still is the 5th vote. beachbumbob Nov 2019 #31

Yeah that's pretty depressing too. lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #32

Not really. Roberts has a sense of legacy, history and precedence. beachbumbob Nov 2019 #33

What's Trump's Latest Excuse For Not Releasing?....... global1 Nov 2019 #2

Translation? KPN Nov 2019 #3

The House is "allowing" input from SCOTUS, but SCOTUS doesn't get the last word. The ancianita Nov 2019 #4

That simply is not true. onenote Nov 2019 #6

Not necessarily in this particular impeachment context. ancianita Nov 2019 #13

Yes, necessarily. onenote Nov 2019 #14

The USSC would be encroaching on the House's oversight duty, as described in the Constitution, Eyeball_Kid Nov 2019 #17

They just did something: Polybius Nov 2019 #21

You are simply wrong. onenote Nov 2019 #22

First, they're deciding whether or not to even hear the appeal, which is for immunity from ancianita Nov 2019 #23

This just in: Polybius Nov 2019 #20

Welp, that right there tells you the political bias of the Republican Five on the USSC. A disgusting ancianita Nov 2019 #24

No, it does not. herding cats Nov 2019 #25

Okay. I understand now. Thanks. ancianita Nov 2019 #27

I just didn't want you to worry unnecessarily. herding cats Nov 2019 #30

It does nothing of the sort onenote Nov 2019 #26

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I'll shut up until the next decision. ancianita Nov 2019 #29

What is there to weigh? The House is doing its job as a check on the power of the President as laid cstanleytech Nov 2019 #7

Here is a link to the letter onenote Nov 2019 #8

Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #9

This thread might help explain the process: mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #12

Links to Robert Barnes, of the Washington Post; and to SCOTUSblog's Twitter accounts: mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #15

If the Supremes side with tRump on this one, Bayard Nov 2019 #16

10 days. Hmm, that would make a lovely Thanksgiving gift. mpcamb Nov 2019 #18

Dems are palying 3D chess bluescribbler Nov 2019 #19

I'm not worried...we'll get them... VarryOn Nov 2019 #28

For this thread Gothmog Nov 2019 #34

Thanks. NT mahatmakanejeeves Nov 2019 #35

Question here bluestarone Nov 2019 #36