My point is that he’s actively seeking to drag this out by his actions. He’s not to be trusted.
6 Likes
No-one, including @duketrout, is arguing that it’s procedurally unusual. They’re arguing that this particular meritless case has been given a stay not for routine reasons but for partisan ones by an obviously politicised SCOTUS justice. To say “procedurally this is nothing unusual” distracts from the core problems associated with Thomas blocking the order. All that does is give the fascists a talking point (“what’s the big deal? People with legal expertise who are liberals are saying this is routine!”).
4 Likes
Disagree with what specifically, counselor?
3 Likes
Once again, Thomas is clearly trying to gum up the works of due justice. It is NOT normal.
5 Likes
IANAL myself, but I’m aware that this kind of stay from SCOTUS justices isn’t uncommon and serves a purpose. I doubt that you or I are not the only ones here who were aware of that before this incident. Now I’m sure it would satisfying to demonstrate my possession of supposedly esoteric knowledge, but as someone who cares about an independent judiciary as a foundation of American liberal democracy I thought to myself, hey, let’s not bury the bloody lede here and do the fascists a favour (anyone who doesn’t think Faux News will grasp at this straw is fooling themselves).
But that’s me. Perhaps you genuinely think there is no lede to bury and that this is not yet another alarming example of deteriorating liberal democracy in the U.S.
4 Likes
That should be the end of the discussion. The fact that the stay as a mechanism is routine is a distraction.
2 Likes
The thing that some people seem to be missing is that while stays like this aren’t uncommon, it also isn’t uncommon for them to be denied. There is a standard of judgment Justices are supposed to be using to decide whether or not to grant these emergency stays. It’s a two part analysis, and the first step is supposed to be the likelihood of the case eventually being ruled in the moving party’s favor. If there’s a reasonable possibility it could be ruled in their favor, you grant the stay, especially if (and this is part 2 of the analysis) that party would suffer some kind of harm if the stay is not granted. However, if there is almost no chance the party will be successful in their lawsuit, they don’t usually grant the stay. That’s what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said here. They could have granted the stay, but they said no. Someone else mention Sotomayor doing the same in the Yeshiva University case, and that one, imo, is also a little questionable. The difference, however, is that Sotomayor has no connection, not even a tenuous one, to the case. Thomas, as everyone here seems to agree, is conflicted. He could have avoided this entire controversy by recusing himself, or by letting the entire Court make the decision on the emergency stay request.
8 Likes
A distraction remains a distraction. Which isn’t helpful in an atmosphere where fascists are constantly looking for distractions.
4 Likes
The disturbing thing is, I don’t think Thomas saw anything that needed be avoided. He is a very politicised and very vindictive person who’s shown again and again over his career that he doesn’t mind using his position of power to shamelessly exact revenge on liberals.
For those interested in this weird angry guy and how he ended up where he is, I recommend these grimly fascinating episodes of BTB. His being the Inappropriate Office Porn Fan is the least twisted part of his history.
9 Likes
In the case of SCOTUS vs some other court, isn’t there a third reason too. If they want the entire court to issue an opinion with multiple justices signed on in the majority.
The administrative stay isn’t the same same as a stay until a full argument and ruling is done by SCOTUS. I assume that’s why they call it out as an “administrative stay” and not just a “stay”.
Now, if they release a full stay and agree to take up the case with a majority of justices, that would be a huge travesty.
I think it’s safe to say that every commenter here would prefer Thomas to recuse himself.
And this is why every other federal judge is subject to actual rules on when they have to recuse themselves. People often think they can remain objective even when they have some personal connection, so you take the choice away.
5 Likes
In this case, Thomas KNOWS he’s not objective. He just doesn’t care, because anything he can do to further the cause of a right wing take over is justified. Like I’ve been saying in this thread the whole fuckin’ time.
7 Likes
Oh I agree. I’m just saying, in general, this is why we don’t let judges decide for themselves if they can be objective or not.
By the way, this is not a new problem. I’ve mentioned this before, but John Marshall, the Chief Justice who wrote the opinion in Marbury vs Madison that defined the primary function of the Court as we know it today, was directly, personally involved in the events that led to that lawsuit.
4 Likes
Nonsense. If Thomas had rejected it, that would have been “normal.” But granting the stay, regardless for how long, given Thomas’ conflicts of interest, is outrageous. Everyone who cares about our democracy and the rule of law should be really pissed off about it.
5 Likes
By interpreting the courts articles as unsuspicious merely because they look procedurally boring, we are buying into the by-now discredited, but still widely held theory that the court is an “apolitical” body that wouldn’t act in a purely majoritarian fashion.
2 Likes
The distraction is calling it routine.
Granting stays in general (and denying them) is routine.
Granting stays for requests as shitty as this one is not. It’s rare. You’re working awfully hard to normalize it. Which plants you firmly in the Jeanine Pirro Zone, as far as legal analysis goes.
The stay is part of the coup effort, both due to the compromised source and the fact that it’s not a councidence. If this stay had been granted by Roberts or Justice Beer O’Clock, that would remain true.
5 Likes
I don’t give a shit about whether it is predictive of the full court’s direction. That’s not the point - making it the point is deflecton from the real issue, which is whether it is due the full court’s attention at all, and whether it justified a stay, regardless of whether stays are routine.
The answer is, no, it’s not worth the full court’s consideration, and no, it doesn’t justify a stay.
Even if the court wants to explore the limits of protection offered to congress, and to use this case as a vehicle for that even though it’s meritless then no stay is necessary. They can take up the case as a mechanism for such exploration while still allowing Georgia to compel Graham to testify. And timeliness in this case is important, before the midterm elections potentially disrupt the political will to find out the truth of Graham’s involvement.
6 Likes
Calling it an overreaction is also dissmissive.
The timing is relevant. Graham made these calls almost two years ago. His appeal is at best a hail mary but more solidly a delaying tactic to push his required testimony out to a point in time when his political allies can block it.
Every day counts. Delaying his testimony by a few days immediately before an election is a cynical move by Thomas. It is politically motivated. He’s helping Graham run out the clock. This is why the stay itself is politically-motivated obstruction. That’s why people are up in arms about it. It’s not overreaction.
8 Likes
So we know it’s a grave injustice to block, but it’s not of any concern to stay it to see if they want to block it? That’s…a very specific threshold.
8 Likes
This looks normal, but it’s designed to look normal.
If Lindsay Graham is likely to prevail on the merits, having him testify before he actually gets his case even looked at heard tends to make his claims moot. But
a.) his case is absurd
b.) I’m not sure that the deposition schedule would ordinarily come before the denial of cert.
as the CRS report on the shadow docket claims
Emergency litigation before the Supreme Court often concerns requests for preliminary injunctive relief. In theory, such relief is designed to preserve the status quo while a case is pending and remains in effect only until the courts can fully consider the merits of the case. However, emergency matters are often subject to rigid real-world deadlines, and sometimes the federal courts are not able to consider the merits in full before those deadlines pass. In those cases, a decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction (or a stay of a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court) may effectively resolve the case.
1 Like
