There's a sense out there that the Supreme Court should never take cases in which the lower court was clearly correct. Respectfully, I disagree with that. One of the criteria for certiorari is the *importance* of the issue, whether or not the lower court hit a homerun. So although I still would've preferred that the Court sit this one ou…
There's a sense out there that the Supreme Court should never take cases in which the lower court was clearly correct. Respectfully, I disagree with that. One of the criteria for certiorari is the *importance* of the issue, whether or not the lower court hit a homerun. So although I still would've preferred that the Court sit this one out, it is not that hard to argue that Trump's appeal meets the traditional criteria for certiorari. And once there were four votes to take the case in some form, the fight reduces to one of timing (on which, see my other comments).
There's a sense out there that the Supreme Court should never take cases in which the lower court was clearly correct. Respectfully, I disagree with that. One of the criteria for certiorari is the *importance* of the issue, whether or not the lower court hit a homerun. So although I still would've preferred that the Court sit this one out, it is not that hard to argue that Trump's appeal meets the traditional criteria for certiorari. And once there were four votes to take the case in some form, the fight reduces to one of timing (on which, see my other comments).
At this point I can at least hope that the opinion is formatted as such:
Roberts, joined by many Justices: "Presidents are not kings. Court below was exactly right. The stay is terminated."
Thomas, writing alone: blah blah blah