Loading...
Title : "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..."
link : "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..."
"So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..."
"... a request to the justices to hear the case this spring without waiting. The Supreme Court’s rules reserve this court-jumping procedure for cases of 'imperative public importance.' Only a handful of cases has cleared that bar, including the Nixon tapes case, which effectively forced the president’s resignation and the 1981 case that ratified the agreement that ended the Iran hostage crisis. Invoking those cases, Solicitor General Francisco insists to the court that “that standard has been met here,” an assertion the plaintiffs vigorously dispute...."Writes Linda Greenhouse in the NYT. She ends with this point, which might cut the other way:
Even if the justices find Judge Alsup’s analysis questionable and the case surpassingly important, there is an obvious reason for the court to stay its hand: the possibility, however remote, of congressional action during the months it would surely take the court to issue a decision. Recruited to a walk-on role in the other branches’ drama, the justices could well find themselves exposed on an empty stage. At least this is how it looks to me, from the outside. Will it look that way from inside the justices’ private conference? I don’t know, but I’m sure of this: The future of more than the Dreamers is at stake.I don't see the problem of taking a case and then getting superseded by legislative action. Solving this problem with new legislation is the best solution, and the Court's expedited attention to the case might pressure Congress to get its work done more quickly. If it did, would the Justices suffer some loss of prestige — finding themselves exposed on an empty stage?
I don't see the problem. The Court wouldn't be grabbing the case because it wants to glory in the spotlight, but because the case is of "imperative public importance." If it ceases to be a case, because the dispute is resolved by actions taken in political branches, the Court would bow out.
It would not be that the Court embarrassed itself by seeing a matter of imperative public importance when there wasn't one, but that the Congress — also concerned with matters of imperative public importance — exercised its own power. At that point, the judicial power would play out in a normal way, applying the law to the changed facts and acknowledging whatever power Congress has.
The Solicitor General, seeking to skip over the intermediate appellate court, is perhaps overdramatizing the need for quick action, but Greenhouse is overdramatizing the consequence for the Court if the supposedly big-deal case turns into nothing.
I think she knows this, as she asks: "Will it look that way from inside the justices’ private conference?" She says she doesn't know, but I think it's pretty clear the answer is no. She purports to be sure that "The future of more than the Dreamers is at stake." That's the last line of the column. It's clear that she means that the future of the Court is at stake, but in what way?
In some utterly banal way, the future for everyone and everything is always at stake. But I guess she's warning the Court that she and the rest of the Court-following mainstream media stand ready to criticize the Court. That shouldn't affect anyone on the Court, but it could.
"... a request to the justices to hear the case this spring without waiting. The Supreme Court’s rules reserve this court-jumping procedure for cases of 'imperative public importance.' Only a handful of cases has cleared that bar, including the Nixon tapes case, which effectively forced the president’s resignation and the 1981 case that ratified the agreement that ended the Iran hostage crisis. Invoking those cases, Solicitor General Francisco insists to the court that “that standard has been met here,” an assertion the plaintiffs vigorously dispute...."
Writes Linda Greenhouse in the NYT. She ends with this point, which might cut the other way:
I don't see the problem. The Court wouldn't be grabbing the
Writes Linda Greenhouse in the NYT. She ends with this point, which might cut the other way:
Even if the justices find Judge Alsup’s analysis questionable and the case surpassingly important, there is an obvious reason for the court to stay its hand: the possibility, however remote, of congressional action during the months it would surely take the court to issue a decision. Recruited to a walk-on role in the other branches’ drama, the justices could well find themselves exposed on an empty stage. At least this is how it looks to me, from the outside. Will it look that way from inside the justices’ private conference? I don’t know, but I’m sure of this: The future of more than the Dreamers is at stake.I don't see the problem of taking a case and then getting superseded by legislative action. Solving this problem with new legislation is the best solution, and the Court's expedited attention to the case might pressure Congress to get its work done more quickly. If it did, would the Justices suffer some loss of prestige — finding themselves exposed on an empty stage?
I don't see the problem. The Court wouldn't be grabbing the
Loading...
case because it wants to glory in the spotlight, but because the case is of "imperative public importance." If it ceases to be a case, because the dispute is resolved by actions taken in political branches, the Court would bow out.
It would not be that the Court embarrassed itself by seeing a matter of imperative public importance when there wasn't one, but that the Congress — also concerned with matters of imperative public importance — exercised its own power. At that point, the judicial power would play out in a normal way, applying the law to the changed facts and acknowledging whatever power Congress has.
The Solicitor General, seeking to skip over the intermediate appellate court, is perhaps overdramatizing the need for quick action, but Greenhouse is overdramatizing the consequence for the Court if the supposedly big-deal case turns into nothing.
I think she knows this, as she asks: "Will it look that way from inside the justices’ private conference?" She says she doesn't know, but I think it's pretty clear the answer is no. She purports to be sure that "The future of more than the Dreamers is at stake." That's the last line of the column. It's clear that she means that the future of the Court is at stake, but in what way?
In some utterly banal way, the future for everyone and everything is always at stake. But I guess she's warning the Court that she and the rest of the Court-following mainstream media stand ready to criticize the Court. That shouldn't affect anyone on the Court, but it could.
It would not be that the Court embarrassed itself by seeing a matter of imperative public importance when there wasn't one, but that the Congress — also concerned with matters of imperative public importance — exercised its own power. At that point, the judicial power would play out in a normal way, applying the law to the changed facts and acknowledging whatever power Congress has.
The Solicitor General, seeking to skip over the intermediate appellate court, is perhaps overdramatizing the need for quick action, but Greenhouse is overdramatizing the consequence for the Court if the supposedly big-deal case turns into nothing.
I think she knows this, as she asks: "Will it look that way from inside the justices’ private conference?" She says she doesn't know, but I think it's pretty clear the answer is no. She purports to be sure that "The future of more than the Dreamers is at stake." That's the last line of the column. It's clear that she means that the future of the Court is at stake, but in what way?
In some utterly banal way, the future for everyone and everything is always at stake. But I guess she's warning the Court that she and the rest of the Court-following mainstream media stand ready to criticize the Court. That shouldn't affect anyone on the Court, but it could.
Thus articles "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..."
that is all articles "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'..." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/02/so-while-filing-appeal-in-daca-case-to.html
0 Response to ""So while filing an appeal [in the DACA case] to the Ninth Circuit, the administration’s lawyers also went to the Supreme Court with a 'petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment'...""
Post a Comment