Do any SCOTUS justices side with Rudy Giuliani in the Pennsylvania election appeal?

[I’m not Stu]

Do any justices side with Giuliani. I don't think the election will be stolen, but will there be any dissenters? I imagine Thomas and Alito will dissent and side with Giuliani.

[Skill and Chance]

Alito and maybe Thomas would try to find a way to vote to hear Trump's claims.  They might wait for a different case to be appealed though as this one is really out there.

[I’m not Stu]

Alito and maybe Thomas would try to find a way to vote to hear Trump's claims.  They might wait for a different case to be appealed though as this one is really out there.

A different case won't come up. It's too late for that. This is Trump's last chance.

[NewYorkExpress]

All of the Conservative Justices except for Roberts (and maybe Gorsuch, but that's less likely) will side with Trump.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, all the Circuit Federal judges already conferred with their bosses I'm Election fraud of Trump, you don't hear a peep out of the Justices. Each Circuit are represented by a SCOTUS JUDGE, if a SCOTUS judge retires, he can sit in cases in the Circuit he represented

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

All of the Conservative Justices except for Roberts (and maybe Gorsuch, but that's less likely) will side with Trump.

I don't think you understand just how insane Rudy's case is. Four Federalist Society Republican judges so far have laughed it out of court.

I think at worst Thomas+Alito+Barrett (depending on how corrupt she is) try to pull something here. Also, if the case were a little stronger (i.e. had any legal or factual substance at all), Kavanaugh would be a likelier median justice on it than Gorsuch because Gorsuch for whatever reason is markedly crazier on election cases than he is on everything else.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Also, the longer Giuliani takes to get off his ass and actually file the appeal, the less SCOTUS could do about it even if it wanted to. Already as of today it would be extremely difficult to rush through an actual court proceeding before the safe harbor deadline, meaning by far the likeliest outcomes would be either denial of cert or a summary judgment that would be extremely unlikely to go in Rudy's favor.

[Skill and Chance]

Given the earlier election law cases, Gorsuch is more likely to be the 3rd vote for the Trump/conservative position in this than Barrett.  One of his ideosyncracies is that he is all in on the hyperliteralist reading of "legislature" and he is the most willing to vote his conscience even when it produces strange outcomes. 

I still think it's something like

75%: None
10%: Alito only
10%: Alito and Thomas
4%: Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch
1%: Cert granted (requires 4)

The Trump appointees all have 30+ years on the bench if they want it and I'm sure they don't want to be remembered for this. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Given the earlier election law cases, Gorsuch is more likely to be the 3rd vote for the Trump/conservative position in this than Barrett.  One of his ideosyncracies is that he is all in on the hyperliteralist reading of "legislature" and he is the most willing to vote his conscience even when it produces strange outcomes. 

I still think it's something like

75%: None
10%: Alito only
10%: Alito and Thomas
4%: Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch
1%: Cert granted (requires 4)

The Trump appointees all have 30+ years on the bench if they want it and I'm sure they don't want to be remembered for this. 

Switch Gorsuch with Barrett and I'd agree.  I think think this dumpster fire is probably too crazy for Gorsuch.

[S019]

Alito wil for sure

[SnowLabrador]

Yes, at least four. Kavanaugh is the swing vote.

[brucejoel99]

ITT: inevitable egg on faces

[I’m not Stu]

Cert is likely denied. Thomas and Alito will dissent from denial.

[brucejoel99]

I presume we should now be discussing the appeal that Mike Kelly has put before the Court seeking to have every mail ballot cast in PA thrown out on the basis that they violate the state constitution? Because despite Giuliani's vow to file an appeal of the case that he argued, he has still yet to actually do so.

With regards to the Kelly case, Alito is currently awaiting a response to Kelly's emergency application from the state before he either denies the petition outright or refers it to the full Court for their consideration (though it's a pretty big tell that he gave the state nearly a week to respond; if he was actually concerned about this case's impact on the election, he would've only given them a day or 2, tops). That said, there's little to worry about. Even completely nullifying the PA certification won't change the outcome of this election, so there's little reason for the other Justices to rule in that way save making a statement of loyalty towards the Trump administration, which will no longer be in power after noon on Jan. 20th.

What I expect to see is Thomas & possibly Alito ruling in favor of overturning the certification, mayyyybe even with Barrett &/or Kavanaugh joining them (though I'm of the firm opinion that Kavanaugh wouldn't, & I just don't think we've seen enough of ACB on the Court yet to know what she'd do). As for Gorsuch & Roberts, I'm certain that they'd see no gain in - & only issues arising from - their joining an opinion to nullify, which obviously pushes them both away from nullification.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I presume we should now be discussing the appeal that Mike Kelly has put before the Court seeking to have every mail ballot cast in PA thrown out on the basis that they violate the state constitution? Because despite Giuliani's vow to file an appeal of the case that he argued, he has still yet to actually do so.

With regards to the Kelly case, Alito is currently awaiting a response to Kelly's emergency application from the state before he either denies the petition outright or refers it to the full Court for their consideration (though it's a pretty big tell that he gave the state nearly a week to respond; if he was actually concerned about this case's impact on the election, he would've only given them a day or 2, tops). That said, there's little to worry about. Even completely nullifying the PA certification won't change the outcome of this election, so there's little reason for the other Justices to rule in that way save making a statement of loyalty towards the Trump administration, which will no longer be in power after noon on Jan. 20th.

What I expect to see is Thomas & possibly Alito ruling in favor of overturning the certification, mayyyybe even with Barret &/or Kavanaugh joining them (though I'm of the firm opinion that Kavanaugh wouldn't, & I just don't think we've seen enough of ACB on the Court yet to know what she'd do). As for Gorsuch & Roberts, I'm certain that they'd see no gain in - & only issues arising from - their joining an opinion to nullify, which obviously pushes them both away from nullification.

There's also the state vs. federal law issue; Kelly appealing this into the federal court system at all was an insane move in and of itself given that he's disputing something to do with the state's constitution that the state's supreme court has already ruled on. I don't think Alito is acting like someone who's inclined to grant cert here given that it's far from clear that the case raises issues that are any of the federal government's business. My guess is he hems and haws until mid-month and then throws out the petition for mootness.

The Rudy case is, I would bet, not going to even happen at this point given that he 1. vowed to appeal it and then sat on his ass for a week testifying to crackpot-led state legislature committees instead of doing so and then 2. got the corona. I just finally voted "No" in the poll at the top of the thread because justices can't side with or against an appeal that doesn't happen.

[brucejoel99]

I presume we should now be discussing the appeal that Mike Kelly has put before the Court seeking to have every mail ballot cast in PA thrown out on the basis that they violate the state constitution? Because despite Giuliani's vow to file an appeal of the case that he argued, he has still yet to actually do so.

With regards to the Kelly case, Alito is currently awaiting a response to Kelly's emergency application from the state before he either denies the petition outright or refers it to the full Court for their consideration (though it's a pretty big tell that he gave the state nearly a week to respond; if he was actually concerned about this case's impact on the election, he would've only given them a day or 2, tops). That said, there's little to worry about. Even completely nullifying the PA certification won't change the outcome of this election, so there's little reason for the other Justices to rule in that way save making a statement of loyalty towards the Trump administration, which will no longer be in power after noon on Jan. 20th.

What I expect to see is Thomas & possibly Alito ruling in favor of overturning the certification, mayyyybe even with Barrett &/or Kavanaugh joining them (though I'm of the firm opinion that Kavanaugh wouldn't, & I just don't think we've seen enough of ACB on the Court yet to know what she'd do). As for Gorsuch & Roberts, I'm certain that they'd see no gain in - & only issues arising from - their joining an opinion to nullify, which obviously pushes them both away from nullification.

There's also the state vs. federal law issue; Kelly appealing this into the federal court system at all was an insane move in and of itself given that he's disputing something to do with the state's constitution that the state's supreme court has already ruled on. I don't think Alito is acting like someone who's inclined to grant cert here given that it's far from clear that the case raises issues that are any of the federal government's business. My guess is he hems and haws until mid-month and then throws out the petition for mootness.

To be fair to Kelly's case (not that it deserves it), they have now re-framed their state-law claims on federal grounds, so it does (however tangentially) make it a matter that's reviewable by SCOTUS. As for Alito, though, I'm just annoyed that he's even giving this thing any air at all. He knows damn well that he doesn't have to since he knows it has no chance of affecting the result, but he's doing so anyway.

[MATTROSE94]

Definitely Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Likely Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch as well.

[Donerail]

lol owned

[brucejoel99]

Good, now PA should consider countersuing Kelly to recover their court costs.

[Dereich]

Can't believe half the thread thought that any SCOTUS member would put their reputations on the line for this clearly baseless and wildly overreaching claim.

[dead0man]

Can't believe half the thread thought that any SCOTUS member would put their reputations on the line for this clearly baseless and wildly overreaching claim.

a certain type of red avatar is afraid of everything and just know things aren't going to break their way.  If these people predict rain, leave your umbrella at home.

[I’m not Stu]

The request for a stay was denied, but a cert petition still looms.

[brucejoel99]

The request for a stay was denied, but a cert petition still looms.

The injunction for relief was what the Kelly case was asking for & their request was treated as a cert petition, so the PA case is no longer active:

https://twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1336511573234429954
Now, the TX one is still on the docket, yes, but that case isn't even a lawsuit so much as a pardon application on Ken Paxton's part.

[MarkD]

Can't believe half the thread thought that any SCOTUS member would put their reputations on the line for this clearly baseless and wildly overreaching claim.

Almost exactly 20 years ago William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas did not worry about their reputations when they granted George W. Bush's request for an injunction to stop the Florida recount. Bush's claim that the recount was being conducted in a manner that violated the Constitution was also wildly overreaching, but ROSKT were more loyal to their party's nominee than they were to the Constitution and had no worries about how much they would be hated by all of the people who had voted for Gore.

[brucejoel99]

Can't believe half the thread thought that any SCOTUS member would put their reputations on the line for this clearly baseless and wildly overreaching claim.

Almost exactly 20 years ago William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas did not worry about their reputations when they granted George W. Bush's request for an injunction to stop the Florida recount. Bush's claim that the recount was being conducted in a manner that violated the Constitution was also wildly overreaching, but ROSKT were more loyal to their party's nominee than they were to the Constitution and had no worries about how much they would be hated by all of the people who had voted for Gore.

The difference between 20 years ago & now, of course, being that Bush v. Gore saw a 537-vote margin in 1 state decide it all (&, not to mention, legitimate federal questions presented, even if one disagrees with how the Court ended up ruling on said questions), whereas even if they were to rule in favor of this case's plaintiff, the overall election result would still not be overturned, as that would require cases in several states - all of which have seen Biden margins of victory that are larger than FL-2000 was - all having to flip them in favor of Trump, who's currently 1-51 in post-election litigation.