7
7
0
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 6
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG (Join to see) Unless he has something compelling I would be amazed if the SCOTUS even touches this.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SPC Kevin Ford - They've weighed in on lesser things.
The importance of this virtually assures that they will take the case.
The importance of this virtually assures that they will take the case.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
1SG (Join to see) - That doesn’t comport with how the SCOTUS decides to take on cases. It isn’t based on some idea of importance. They only take on cases they want to and generally take cases for two reasons:
- There are conflicting rulings on questions of law in the different circuits and they want to clarify a uniform result.
- There is a legitimate question as to the ruling in a lower court.
The first instance clearly doesn’t apply and the Trump team so far has not brought any compelling cases that would fall into the second. The court is loath to be seen as political and they know from the fallout from 2000 that getting involved in that way is damaging to the court. Unless there is some truly solid reason to believe a lower court got it wrong, I’d be surprised if they weigh in, particularly in a way that would rule on a election result.
- There are conflicting rulings on questions of law in the different circuits and they want to clarify a uniform result.
- There is a legitimate question as to the ruling in a lower court.
The first instance clearly doesn’t apply and the Trump team so far has not brought any compelling cases that would fall into the second. The court is loath to be seen as political and they know from the fallout from 2000 that getting involved in that way is damaging to the court. Unless there is some truly solid reason to believe a lower court got it wrong, I’d be surprised if they weigh in, particularly in a way that would rule on a election result.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next