What's the procedure for Supreme Court to reschedule a case to decide if to grant cert?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:16:52 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  What's the procedure for Supreme Court to reschedule a case to decide if to grant cert?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What's the procedure for Supreme Court to reschedule a case to decide if to grant cert?  (Read 209 times)
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 06, 2021, 07:47:01 PM »

What's the procedure for Supreme Court to reschedule a case for a later conference to decide if to grant cert?

The Mississippi abortion case was rescheduled more than 20 times before cert was granted. Is it just up to the Chief, or they need to vote to reschedule?

If Roberts can decide by himself, as long as there were no four votes to grant cert in one conference, he can simply deny. Why bother reschedule?

We Know Thomas and Alito will always grant cert to overturn Roe, as long as the vehicle is good, even if their position may lose. I am not 100% sure about Gorsuch, but it gives me the same impression. So for this abortion case, there were 3 votes to grant, only 1 more needed.

This means Kavanaugh and Barrett were not sure at some point. I am inclined to Kavanaugh did not want to grant. He was reported to urged the court to avoid taking controversial abortion cases. Note this is different from June Medical, in which the LA abortion restriction was upheld by 5th circuit. It may be the 4 liberals who want to grant cert to strike it down.

I bet Kavanaugh doesn't want to be the 5th vote to overrule Roe. It's way better for him to not take this case at all.

So the reason it got rescheduled so many times may be that Barrett felt hard to make a decision, and she asked Roberts for more time to consider.

Roberts wanted to be good with her, to compete for her with Thomas. For Barrett, it's almost clear she thinks Roe was wrongly decided. Yet she cares stare decisis more than Scalia, as well as the court's reputation and her own image.

For the Dobbs case, the 5th circuit upheld the district court's ruling to strike down the anti abortion law (which they should), and the application for en banc was denied. For those supporting abortion, it's very likely they don't want to grant cert. It may be possible that they want to use this case to reaffirm Roe and to tell red states to stop passing similar laws, but this is not very likely.

So my guess is, at the initial conference, only three votes to grant cert. Barrett was not sure, and asked more time to decide. She might even privately communicated with Roberts. Roberts was faced with the choice to either deny her, or reschedule. He might be worried that if he refuse to reschedule, Barrett would directly vote to grant cert. So he agreed, hoping she might decided to vote to deny in the end. But Barrett became the 4th vote to grant cert. She may indeed want to overturn Roe, which is plausible and likely. It is also possible that she want to send a clear message that she cares stare decisis and she is not a radical crazy Trump justice that the media depicted.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2021, 08:06:15 PM »

It's not out of the realm of possibility, I suppose, that at least one of the justices on the opposite side (such as a conservative judge on Civil Rights issue in the Warren Court, or a liberal judge in an abortion issue in this court) might grant in a high profile case just to get their fellow justices's positions on the record in an oral argument, but that doesn't seem like something our current liberal trio of justices would do.
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2021, 09:33:57 PM »

Why do they do this? And in the civil right era, there were pretty much only two reliable conservative until 1991.
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2021, 10:16:11 PM »

Why do they do this? And in the civil right era, there were pretty much only two reliable conservative until 1991.

I just said why. They'd want their fellow justices positions on the record in Oral Arguments. Especially in this day and age, pretty much everything, even the supposedly impartial Supreme Court, is political.
Logged
David Hume
davidhume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,581
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: 1.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2021, 10:42:21 PM »

How would having "their fellow justices positions on the record " help them?
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2021, 10:58:01 PM »

How would having "their fellow justices positions on the record " help them?

A lot of oral arguments are public now, with an audience (which may or not include the press). There often is a record of said oral argument.

Having a justice's position on a subject could be helpful for a justice's party, especially when confirming future justice's or, as we've realized, impeachment is going to be merely about political views and not about actual crimes.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.025 seconds with 11 queries.