Two long-pending cert. petitions in capital cases help to illustrate the two different ways in which the justices put off decisions respecting whether or not to take up a new case
I greatly appreciate your analysis and insight, Steve. You invited ideas for future topics, so here goes.
In anticipation of Chutkan's case ending up back in the S CT, could you help prepare us? First, are official acts on the "outer perimeter" synonymous with "implied powers"? Second, explain presumption. Who has the burden? Smith rebuts the presumption of immunity; then, Trump rebuts the rebuttal? Third, how can any conduct by a President be "official" if, by virtue of its illegality, it is a failure to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (eg, ordering a Navy Seal to kill a political rival)? Fourth, historically, the law recognizes qualified immunity for government officials (right?). So is the ruling the president has absolute criminal immunity for core duties unprecedented in law, or unprecedented vis a vis the U.S. President, or both? Fifth, the Court said (Art II s 1) the executive power is vested in one person (the President). Is it significant that the opinion also refers to Executive "Branch," thereby clouding Smith's argument surrounding the Trump-Pence conversations about Pence's President-of-the-Senate role? Thanks.
To what do I attribute Thomas's longevity? He takes care of himself by doing just about anything that makes HIM happy. Must admit I'm trying the same strategy myself.
Fantastic as ever. How do they decide to add additional questions?
e.g. what if 3 of them want to grant and add a question about Trop v Dulles, 2 want to grant and add a question about Atkins, one wants to grant without adding any more questions and 3 want to deny
In that scenario would they just be deadlocked? I wonder if that could explain the many many relists.
I greatly appreciate your analysis and insight, Steve. You invited ideas for future topics, so here goes.
In anticipation of Chutkan's case ending up back in the S CT, could you help prepare us? First, are official acts on the "outer perimeter" synonymous with "implied powers"? Second, explain presumption. Who has the burden? Smith rebuts the presumption of immunity; then, Trump rebuts the rebuttal? Third, how can any conduct by a President be "official" if, by virtue of its illegality, it is a failure to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (eg, ordering a Navy Seal to kill a political rival)? Fourth, historically, the law recognizes qualified immunity for government officials (right?). So is the ruling the president has absolute criminal immunity for core duties unprecedented in law, or unprecedented vis a vis the U.S. President, or both? Fifth, the Court said (Art II s 1) the executive power is vested in one person (the President). Is it significant that the opinion also refers to Executive "Branch," thereby clouding Smith's argument surrounding the Trump-Pence conversations about Pence's President-of-the-Senate role? Thanks.
Interesting questions, indeed.
To what do I attribute Thomas's longevity? He takes care of himself by doing just about anything that makes HIM happy. Must admit I'm trying the same strategy myself.
Perhaps they're hoping Smith will pass away to moot the entire question?
Fantastic as ever. How do they decide to add additional questions?
e.g. what if 3 of them want to grant and add a question about Trop v Dulles, 2 want to grant and add a question about Atkins, one wants to grant without adding any more questions and 3 want to deny
In that scenario would they just be deadlocked? I wonder if that could explain the many many relists.