Will this put the trial past the election? I don't see late April for oral argument as particularly "expedited" given the circumstances. Why can't they set it for day after tomorrow? Its not as if there hasn't been extensive briefing AND argument already. All anyone has to do is change the blinkin' caption on their pleadings.
Will this put the trial past the election? I don't see late April for oral argument as particularly "expedited" given the circumstances. Why can't they set it for day after tomorrow? Its not as if there hasn't been extensive briefing AND argument already. All anyone has to do is change the blinkin' caption on their pleadings.
It definitely *could* put the trial past the election, but it might not. On the timing front, the Court is moving almost as fast as it moved in the Colorado case. *Could* it have moved faster? Sure! But I think it's worth differentiating between *litigation* emergencies (e.g., an execution scheduled for 12:01 a.m., or a law set to go into effect tomorrow) and *political* emergencies. Yes, time is of the essence here, but from the justices' perspective, for political reasons more than legal ones. That's why I think this timing likely reflects something of a compromise within the Court, for better or worse.
I believe the Court took 45 days to hold oral argument on rhe Colorado disqualification 4th Amendment case and here they refused to directly review the decision by the District Court as requested by Jack Smith and now is tacking on 7 additional weeks before oral argument which by adding the 2 weeks since DC Circuit Court ruling is 63 days plus the one month due toe Supreme CourtтАЩs refusal to directly review the DistrictтАЩs decision.
Will this put the trial past the election? I don't see late April for oral argument as particularly "expedited" given the circumstances. Why can't they set it for day after tomorrow? Its not as if there hasn't been extensive briefing AND argument already. All anyone has to do is change the blinkin' caption on their pleadings.
It definitely *could* put the trial past the election, but it might not. On the timing front, the Court is moving almost as fast as it moved in the Colorado case. *Could* it have moved faster? Sure! But I think it's worth differentiating between *litigation* emergencies (e.g., an execution scheduled for 12:01 a.m., or a law set to go into effect tomorrow) and *political* emergencies. Yes, time is of the essence here, but from the justices' perspective, for political reasons more than legal ones. That's why I think this timing likely reflects something of a compromise within the Court, for better or worse.
I believe the Court took 45 days to hold oral argument on rhe Colorado disqualification 4th Amendment case and here they refused to directly review the decision by the District Court as requested by Jack Smith and now is tacking on 7 additional weeks before oral argument which by adding the 2 weeks since DC Circuit Court ruling is 63 days plus the one month due toe Supreme CourtтАЩs refusal to directly review the DistrictтАЩs decision.
Running out the clock
For worse