Originally published at: Supreme Court declines to halt Trump sentencing - Boing Boing
…
12 Likes
32 Likes
No place to park their case.
21 Likes
That’s likely the reason, although they didn’t explain why. Here’s the entirety of the order:
Missouri’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied, and its motion for preliminary relief or a stay is dismissed as moot. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito would grant the motion for leave to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief.
ETA: Actually, they did give a reason. I’m blind. They said it was moot. That’s…interesting, actually. That typically means they’re saying that while the plaintiff may have had a case at one time, they no longer do because of something that happened. I don’t know if that means that because he hasn’t been sentenced yet, and there’s an issue of whether the immunity ruling applies to this case, that means this complaint isn’t really live until that is decided? It’s not standing or they would have said that it was denied for lack of standing. I’m concerned this might mean they think that case is dead because of their immunity ruling.
25 Likes
A different meaning may be that it is moot because it involves actions that took place prior to the Donvict being sworn in as president.
Roberts has very little integrity left, but even he can’t muster a “he has presidential immunity for actions that took place before he was president.”
Scalito and Thomas, otoh, show yet again they are unfit to serve as judges at a county fair pie eating contest.
23 Likes
How does a state think they can interfere in another state’s legal decisions? And unless there is a connotational issue why is the Federal courts involved? Yes I get it was a political stunt.
8 Likes
No, that would be an element of mootness for the original case, not for this case filed by Missouri. There has to be something that made this complaint moot. It may be as simple as the fact that Trump hasn’t been sentenced yet.
8 Likes
Because the case was filed in federal court, and it was filed in federal court because it’s literally a dispute between two states.
7 Likes
Wouldn’t they also say that if there was lack of standing? Jurisdiction and standing are settled first, and if it fails those, then the rest is moot? (But why didn’t they plainly say that?)
4 Likes
Andrew Bailey is a bad, bad man. I’ll be voting in today’s MO primary as a republican, just to try to knock him off the ticket.
12 Likes
I would interpret this move as an attempt to win favor with an orange painted buffoon by literally invoking the article III section 2 verbiage: “The (SCOTUS) judicial power shall extend to all cases . . . between two or more states.” By raising an objection, Missouri was hoping to throw the case directly into the Supreme Courts balliwick, where they would presumably latch onto it and rule in Trump’s favor, except they didn’t. I don’t know if it is because the SC can see that their abuse of power is about to be vigorously pruned back and they’re hoping to avoid a general impeachment or mass hiring of additional justices, or if even the current 6-3 majority has actual jurisprudential ethics and boundaries that still pester them late at night. After Bush v Gore and the overturning of Wade v Roe, I wouldn’t have bet on it.
8 Likes
8 Likes
Is it not simply that the motion for preliminary relief is moot because the motion to file the bill of complaint was denied?
If the claim never starts, there can be no preliminary relief or stay.
1 Like
Well, that didn’t work. 
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
