Posted on 02/10/2019 6:10:00 PM PST by be-baw
The PROPER thing for the Supreme Court should do is put any District Court ruling on hold while it is being appealed...then the 9th Circuit can do whatever they want, but it will be meaningless until dispositioned by the Supreme Court.
liberal georgetown law spin?
if obama was doing this, would it not be heralded as a bold legal masterstroke by a proclaimed constitutional law scholar president?
First time I've heard that expression in my life.
I'm going out on a limb and saying that Lydia Wheeler pulled the concept out of her rear end.
Especially that court. It gets over-ruled constantly.
Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has to be “ready” to hear a case?
“First time I’ve heard that expression in my life.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
The Solicitor General, who has offices in the Supreme Court Building as well as the Department of Justice Headquarters, has been called the “tenth justice”[3] as a result of the close relationship between the justices and the Solicitor General (and their respective staffs of clerks and deputies). As the most frequent advocate before the Court, the Office of the Solicitor General generally argues dozens of times each term. As a result, the Solicitor General tends to remain particularly comfortable during oral arguments that other advocates would find intimidating.[citation needed] Furthermore, when the office of the Solicitor General endorses a petition for certiorari, review is frequently granted, which is remarkable given that only 75–125 of the over 7,500 petitions submitted each term are granted review by the Court.[4]
“if obama was doing this, would it not be heralded as a bold legal masterstroke by a proclaimed constitutional law scholar president?”
Or even better, maybe it would get her appointed to the Supreme Court. That’s what happened with former Obama Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
Indeed,it would!
I think this is the result of courts abusing the use of preliminary injunctions.
Thanks for setting me straight.
That makes perfect sense. Thank you
Ok, so when the SC becomes definitely more conservative, we can expect Congressional democrats to try to bust it up, right? You KNOW they aren’t going to let the court be conservative without trying to change the rules. Again. (Never mind that they were perfectly happy when the balance of the court was liberal.)
This page was last edited on 22 January 2019, at 00:13 (UTC).
“This page was last edited on 22 January 2019, at 00:13 (UTC).”
I see that now. Are you suggesting there’s a particular reason why that was?
Why not? It’s not like the Ninth Circus is worth listening to. Everyone knows their predictable decisions.
“This page was last edited on 22 January 2019, at 00:13 (UTC).”
They really need to reform the 9th District. They’re a joke. I don’t see it happening. No guts in Congress for breaking it up it smaller districts and certainly no appetite for impeachment...unless some judge commits a big nasty.
I would not put it past the “reporter” to alter her reference.
“I would not put it past the “reporter” to alter her reference.”
Neither would I. But Wikipedia is “updating” articles all the time except occasionally one gets locked out. I would need to see more evidence before I would seriously consider any shenanigans might be happening here.
here’s a suggestion RBG recuse herself from all “Trump cases” because of poltical comments she made during the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.