+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: Trump prevents McGahn from testifying. (/showthread.php?tid=228329)
Pages:
1
2
Re: Trump prevents McGahn from testifying. - Ted King - 05-09-2019
rjmacs wrote:
Remember - the SCotUS would really prefer not to decide these cases. Every time it has to make a close call on an issue that divides Americans, it spends a lot of its political capital, which is hard to earn. The Court is the one branch of government whose power rests solely in its reputation for legitimacy. Its only true enforcement power is that people respect its decisions.
With the Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade (and possible other popular civil rights protections), some justices (and certainly Chief Justice Roberts) will be carefully weighing what cases it cannot avoid taking, and deciding many of them as closely as possible so as to avoid the wrath of the public.
Do you happen to have a link to a source that lays out the issue of "actionable" stuff and the pace at which the courts will probably proceed with the House's suits against the Trump administration? I have tried different terms in Google searches but I'm not having any luck.
Re: Trump prevents McGahn from testifying. - rjmacs - 05-09-2019
Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Remember - the SCotUS would really prefer not to decide these cases. Every time it has to make a close call on an issue that divides Americans, it spends a lot of its political capital, which is hard to earn. The Court is the one branch of government whose power rests solely in its reputation for legitimacy. Its only true enforcement power is that people respect its decisions.
With the Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade (and possible other popular civil rights protections), some justices (and certainly Chief Justice Roberts) will be carefully weighing what cases it cannot avoid taking, and deciding many of them as closely as possible so as to avoid the wrath of the public.
Do you happen to have a link to a source that lays out the issue of "actionable" stuff and the pace at which the courts will probably proceed with the House's suits against the Trump administration? I have tried different terms in Google searches but I'm not having any luck.
I don't have any handy, but the election happens in fewer than 18 months and it's entirely at the Court's discretion whether to hear a case in an expedited form (skipping other levels of appeal, normal process, etc.). Generally, nothing makes it through the entire federal courts appeals process in 18 months without a miracle.
Re: Trump prevents McGahn from testifying. - Ted King - 05-09-2019
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=rjmacs]
Remember - the SCotUS would really prefer not to decide these cases. Every time it has to make a close call on an issue that divides Americans, it spends a lot of its political capital, which is hard to earn. The Court is the one branch of government whose power rests solely in its reputation for legitimacy. Its only true enforcement power is that people respect its decisions.
With the Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade (and possible other popular civil rights protections), some justices (and certainly Chief Justice Roberts) will be carefully weighing what cases it cannot avoid taking, and deciding many of them as closely as possible so as to avoid the wrath of the public.
Do you happen to have a link to a source that lays out the issue of "actionable" stuff and the pace at which the courts will probably proceed with the House's suits against the Trump administration? I have tried different terms in Google searches but I'm not having any luck.
I don't have any handy, but the election happens in fewer than 18 months and it's entirely at the Court's discretion whether to hear a case in an expedited form (skipping other levels of appeal, normal process, etc.). Generally, nothing makes it through the entire federal courts appeals process in 18 months without a miracle.
Okay, thanks, the last bit is what I was especially wondering about.
Re: Trump prevents McGahn from testifying. - rjmacs - 05-10-2019
Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=rjmacs]
Remember - the SCotUS would really prefer not to decide these cases. Every time it has to make a close call on an issue that divides Americans, it spends a lot of its political capital, which is hard to earn. The Court is the one branch of government whose power rests solely in its reputation for legitimacy. Its only true enforcement power is that people respect its decisions.
With the Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade (and possible other popular civil rights protections), some justices (and certainly Chief Justice Roberts) will be carefully weighing what cases it cannot avoid taking, and deciding many of them as closely as possible so as to avoid the wrath of the public.
Do you happen to have a link to a source that lays out the issue of "actionable" stuff and the pace at which the courts will probably proceed with the House's suits against the Trump administration? I have tried different terms in Google searches but I'm not having any luck.
I don't have any handy, but the election happens in fewer than 18 months and it's entirely at the Court's discretion whether to hear a case in an expedited form (skipping other levels of appeal, normal process, etc.). Generally, nothing makes it through the entire federal courts appeals process in 18 months without a miracle.
Okay, thanks, the last bit is what I was especially wondering about.
You could probably take a look at the emoluments cases if you wanted an analogue for this administration.