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

msfiddlestix

(8,178 posts)
12. Fair point. Now the question I have is, why did SCITUS render an opinion they chose not to hear?
Mon Oct 2, 2023, 11:03 AM
Oct 2023

Isn't their standard mode of operation, to (metaphorically speaking) toss such cases in the compost bin?

Recommendations

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

Well I wonder if Democrats should file then what do they do, you know the 6 that have meet and .... turbinetree Oct 2023 #1
"Standing" is a fail safe out for subversive fascist fact-finders Ponietz Oct 2023 #2
Were you this upset when all the birther cases were tossed on standing grounds? onenote Oct 2023 #6
Enjoy your day Ponietz Oct 2023 #8
FYI Ponietz Oct 2023 #9
Of course they did - they're only sorry it failed peppertree Oct 2023 #3
It would have been 9-0 if it had gone to the full Court Polybius Oct 2023 #14
I agree Mz Pip Oct 2023 #16
The 14th doesn't mention ANYTHING about conviction however, slightlv Oct 2023 #19
Either way, there would have to be proof of tRump malfeasance. Practically, conviction is main way Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2023 #21
True, it doesn't however just claiming someone engaged in it doesn't mean they did. cstanleytech Oct 2023 #22
Who determines whether someone engaged in insurrection? NYC Liberal Oct 2023 #23
What procedure, specifically Zeitghost Oct 2023 #25
Of course they did Marthe48 Oct 2023 #4
This appeal was doomed from the start onenote Oct 2023 #5
Thank you. And good morning. NT mahatmakanejeeves Oct 2023 #7
Fair point. Now the question I have is, why did SCITUS render an opinion they chose not to hear? msfiddlestix Oct 2023 #12
They are trying to send a signal to other cases which are in the pipe. former9thward Oct 2023 #13
They didn't render an opinion.It was one in long list of cases they refused to hear onenote Oct 2023 #17
Wait. I guess I misread the report. Could have sworn SCOTUS decided the person brining the case msfiddlestix Oct 2023 #26
No. The District Court dismissed the complaint for lack of ripeness and standing onenote Oct 2023 #27
Thank you for helping me understand this better. I've heard the "certiorari" a number of times, msfiddlestix Oct 2023 #28
I think he represented himself. onenote Oct 2023 #29
Hope this puts a damper on the 14th Amendment junk. It ain't gonna work and even if Silent Type Oct 2023 #10
I'm no lawyer, but these cases seem dubious. Lonestarblue Oct 2023 #11
This should put to rest what some self-proclaimed "scholars" said was possible without a conviction Polybius Oct 2023 #15
Yep LeftInTX Oct 2023 #18
This issue melm00se Oct 2023 #20
I don't want someone to replace trump. DownriverDem Oct 2023 #24
Can we be over this already? MistakenLamb Oct 2023 #30
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US Supreme Court rebuffs ...»Reply #12