The Supreme Court declined to hear the case before an appeals court had ruled on the merits. They will almost certainly hear the case after the lower court has ruled. Their decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case, so to say they "did not buy into Trump's garbage" is completely wrong. All the SCOTUS has done here is decline to pre-empt the lower court's ability to hear and rule on the case.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case before an appeals court had ruled on the merits. They will almost certainly hear the case after the lower court has ruled. Their decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case, so to say they "did not buy into Trump's garbage" is completely wrong. All the SCOTUS has done here is decline to pre-empt the lower court's ability to hear and rule on the case.
You made some fair points, but I stand by that garbage statement.
Trump and his team, do not care about the legal structure in this country. Also it was a dirty underhanded attempt by them, that failed for now. So that was a garbage move and the SCOTUS did not fall for it.
Jake, you have to remember. Sometimes people can't really understand what they read.
Posted By: JakeFromStateFarm
Re: Not exactly. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case before an appeals court had ruled on the merits. They will almost certainly hear the case after the lower court has ruled. Their decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case, so to say they "did not buy into Trump's garbage" is completely wrong. All the SCOTUS has done here is decline to pre-empt the lower court's ability to hear and rule on the case.
It is very rare that SCOTUS ever grants original review. Their decision rests on the merits and not merely procedural grounds that you suggest. Is there a matter of such overarching importance that SCOTUS should grant review in lieu of the Court of Appeals? In this case, the SCOTUS said no. We think the 9th Circuit can handle this.
When denial of certiorari such as this occurs, the SCOTUS has rarely granted review after the Appellate court decision unless there is a clear error in law. Perhaps this the case they will, or perhaps not.
For now this is a big slap in President Shitholes face.
of the DACA case. It is a purely procedural ruling that the Rule 11 standard has not been met for certiorari before judgment. But it sheds no light whatsoever as to whether the SCOTUS “buys into Trump’s garbage” as the OP stated.
Under Rule 11, the grant of certiorari of a case pending in the Court of Appeals, “will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice”...
Please explain how the Supreme Court is supposed to make that determination without reviewing the merits of the controversy. Under well settled law, It can’t. It has to look at the merits to determine the exigency of the case and if there is in fact a matter of imperative public importance.
the merits of Judge Alsup’s opinion about enjoining the rescission of DACA, which was what Jake was talking about.
Judge Alsup granted a nationwide injunction against the Dept of Homeland Security’s rescission of DACA and also denied the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The merits of the case are also procedural – was the injunction properly issued, did plaintiffs have standing, did the court have jurisdiction.
So the SCOTUS order refusing to allow the government to skip the Ninth Circuit does not tell us ANYTHING about whether SCOTUS agrees, or disagrees, with any ruling of Judge Alsup or, as the OP put it, “Trump’s bs.”
But you don’t have to take our word for it. Just read any of the media reports and they all say the same thing:
"The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits or even indicate which way it would lean on the DACA program. This was all about the legal process."
Of course they didn’t. If they wanted to, they would have granted certiorari in the first place.
What I said was they reviewed the merits and found no good cause to take it up from the 9th Circuit. Basically it felt that Trumps argument that the injunction against DACA deportations needs to be addressed immediately by SCOTUS for whatever reasons, was bullshit.
It would be a glaring breach of jurisprudence had the SCOTUS even mentioned how it would rule if it went before them, so there is nothing unusual about its silence on that.
Don’t put more than what I said into this to try and make a point that I wasn’t making.
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
