I started thinking about this when Trump ordered travel bans from some countries with terrorist ties, and that was held up in the federal courts. The fact that he's going to try to end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants is another area where this would come into play (because we know damn well this is going to end up in the courts.)

If there's a ruling in federal court, and it is starting the long, slow appeals process, should the POTUS be able to declare that it's a national priority to get a final ruling on the case, and be able to compel the SCOTUS to hear the case in short order and issue a ruling. They could rule however they saw fit, but they would have to make a decision. This would only be for appeals. The SCOTUS isn't set up for hearing initial cases.

For critical decisions, this would make district shopping much less effective, and end the use of the courts to delay the enforcement of decisions for months or years while they wind their way up the judicial food chain.

What does everyone think?

I believe SCOTUS can take a case without going through the all the layers of appeals. Allowing the President to order it? No

It ain't called seperation of powers for no reason...

No. Separation of powers. If the president had this power, he could dictate the court’s agenda. A hostile court? Dictate a docket of meaningless cases. A friendly court? Dictate a docket with only the President’s priorities. We don’t need even more power concentrating in the executive. It is a terrible idea.

Not just no, but hell no.

Supreme Court jurisdiction is set in the Constitution.

quote:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Art. III, Sec 2

Congress can pass laws on this, but not the President.

Yes, the power would have to be authorized by Congress, but granted to the POTUS. I do believe they could do that.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Supreme Court jurisdiction is set in the Constitution.

quote:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Art. III, Sec 2

Congress can pass laws on this, but not the President.

It's not changing the separation of powers. The POTUS wouldn't be able to order them to rule in the way he wants. He just can accelerate the process and make them make a decision.

What it would do it not allow the courts to be used as a delaying tactic, and greatly reduced the benefit of jurisdiction shopping.

If there's a question of the POTUS clogging up the court, thereby blocking other cases, I could see, putting a limit on the number of cases per year he could do this with.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:
It ain't called seperation of powers for no reason...

No. It would alter the balance between the branches. If you don't think bypassing the CoAs matters, you are out of your mind.

No

No. The Constitution was framed to prevent such interference.

Fuck no. Fast track can happen for actual must rule now issues, see Bush vs Gore. Remember, every constitutional shortcut you want to consider for your guy can be used by their guy. Still a good idea?

Nope.

I’m sorry, I meant “hell, no!”

Always imagine the other guy with any new power you propose.

Give Hillary that power? ((Shudder))

Bruce

Negative ghostrider.

This is one of those where at first glance it appears like it might get us what we want. One doesn’t need too look hard at all to realize this would violate the principle of
An independent judiciary. Additionally, as has been mentioned, while it might seem like a good thing short term for “our guy” to be able to do this, you sure wouldn’t want to give that power to a GDC.

Would you have liked Obama to have that power? There's your answer.

Well, Bush v. Gore in 2000 sure was expedited, so there is a way to do it. I just don't know how.

Pretty sure, if Trump issues this EO, CA will sue immediately, which means it goes to the 9th Circus. That means they put a stay on the EO, it doesn't go into effect, then Trump can take it to the SCOTUS, probably on some kind of "fast track" basis. And then they'd probably say Congress needs to clarify the 14th Amendment by law.

No, no, no, no.