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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
14. Not at all
Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:30 PM
Dec 2019

I suspect that just about every lawyer on DU who is familiar with the Court will say the same thing I'm saying

Recommended. H2O Man Dec 2019 #1
Thank you StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #5
More than glad to. H2O Man Dec 2019 #10
True, but times were different then. Today wnylib Dec 2019 #42
Oh, yes, definitely. H2O Man Dec 2019 #50
You have more faith in them and more optimism wnylib Dec 2019 #51
Agree 100% BigDemVoter Dec 2019 #54
Interesting. H2O Man Dec 2019 #56
Well, I do not trust everyone and I do not distrust wnylib Dec 2019 #59
It only takes 4 votes to approve cert, not a majority, VMA131Marine Dec 2019 #2
What disturbs me is the delay. They really should expedite it still_one Dec 2019 #3
Has either party yet moved to do that? jberryhill Dec 2019 #15
Didn't they already do that when they agreed to ask the Court to rule this term? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #18
I guess jberryhill Dec 2019 #23
??? still_one Dec 2019 #41
Ah... jberryhill Dec 2019 #44
and i dont know.the answer to your inqiry. Thanks still_one Dec 2019 #45
Neither do I jberryhill Dec 2019 #46
My question is why are they waiting until March to hear case and then June underthematrix Dec 2019 #4
These requests aren't part of the impeachment inquiry. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #6
Because that is the ordinary schedule jberryhill Dec 2019 #16
Because that's the way the Supreme Court calendar works. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #17
The law is already settled and all the lower courts sided against Trump. OliverQ Dec 2019 #7
Not true StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #9
The majority of Trump's losses were in front of Obama, Clinton, or Bush OliverQ Dec 2019 #74
7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by Bushes, Obama or Clinton StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #79
Am I correct they combined all the cases? SayItLoud Dec 2019 #33
Yes, they did StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #39
Because there are three cases addressing basically the same issues - The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #8
it feels predictable. barbtries Dec 2019 #11
Yes, here's the graveyard... FiveGoodMen Dec 2019 #12
Not at all StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #14
I agree with you. There are three cases that raised important issues The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #20
Meh jberryhill Dec 2019 #24
But the issue is whether a president can assert absolute immunity from investigation StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #25
That issue is not necessary to resolution of the case jberryhill Dec 2019 #26
That issue is essential to resolve one of the cases. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #37
True, but as I understand it that's not the only case. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #27
Agreed and lawyer talk doesn't change reality. n/t MarcA Dec 2019 #35
"Lawyer talk"? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #36
it's The Sanity Clause ... Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #69
All yer high-falutin' big words and stuff Codeine Dec 2019 #73
KnR Hekate Dec 2019 #13
What it could mean is that a decision will be delayed until after the election. Sneederbunk Dec 2019 #19
No, they are saying it will be released this term, in June. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #21
This message was self-deleted by its author True Blue American Dec 2019 #88
NOTHING tells us we should hope for the best here and expect it to be. Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #22
Separation of Powers Question to be decided by the Branch MarcA Dec 2019 #38
If Dems sweep in 2020, it's time to take up some matters. Grasswire2 Dec 2019 #58
Those things would require constitutional amendments The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #76
It couldn't be accomplished by Congress even if Democrats did have the numbers StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #80
Exactly. Constitutional amendments aren't quite impossible, but almost; The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #83
You're right, as usual. StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #84
Agreed. The amendments process is not a promising choice. MarcA Dec 2019 #92
Not at all FBaggins Dec 2019 #86
Agree completely. We have to fight hard. not wnylib Dec 2019 #47
Thanks for your postings Baked Potato Dec 2019 #28
This case scares the hell out of me. CanonRay Dec 2019 #29
Would it be a bad idea or good idea for bluestarone Dec 2019 #30
Or that, they reply in April or March; SayItLoud Dec 2019 #31
Courts can't function if information is secret bucolic_frolic Dec 2019 #32
There's every reason to be concerned. Imperialism Inc. Dec 2019 #34
The reason they would do it is the same reason the republicans have been doing everything jcgoldie Dec 2019 #52
They should have never taken the case ... aggiesal Dec 2019 #40
Sure the intent is to be positive angrychair Dec 2019 #43
This isn't about trying to be positive. I'm trying to help people understand what this means and doe StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #48
"Take a breath, everyone." Is that safe now? Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #49
que sera, sera... stillcool Dec 2019 #60
"Here be dragons" Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #67
But it's yet another stonewall delay for trum. Court hears case in March 2020. Ruling in June. iluvtennis Dec 2019 #53
This still leaves plenty of time StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #55
To let the lower court rulings stand. Did the SC have to take this appeal. iluvtennis Dec 2019 #57
If they had let the lower court ruling stand, he'd just come up with another excuse StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #61
Thank you again StarfishSaver dware Dec 2019 #66
Thanks... appreciate your thoughts. nt iluvtennis Dec 2019 #68
But they won't decide until June so Trump is fully protected until then. Kablooie Dec 2019 #62
Protected from what? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #63
Protected from having his taxes scrutinized. Kablooie Dec 2019 #64
I'm willing to wait StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #65
is he? Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #70
In sane times, the court wouldn't hear the case. But the US is just a giant asylum at this point. Garrett78 Dec 2019 #71
In sane times, such a case would never have come before the Court StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #72
We've been told over and over that it will all be OK Bettie Dec 2019 #75
How has it gotten worse? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #81
Barbara McQuaid made some interesting remarks about this case: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2019 #77
I hate to say that we need to consider RBG's health mucifer Dec 2019 #78
I don't think that's a factor in this instance StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #82
Just for the record here bluestarone Dec 2019 #85
Great question! StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #89
TY for your response! bluestarone Dec 2019 #91
I have individual rights concerns. Doormouse Dec 2019 #87
Seriously? StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #90
Take it easy on that straw man there ... "unrestrained?" ehrnst Dec 2019 #94
Good advice. It's hard sometimes, though. Politicub Dec 2019 #93
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Please don't get upset or...»Reply #14