SIGforum
Should the POTUS be able to order the SCOTUS to hear an appeal directly from any level of federal court?
October 31, 2018, 11:13 AM
BBMWShould the POTUS be able to order the SCOTUS to hear an appeal directly from any level of federal court?
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?
October 31, 2018, 11:18 AM
MNSIGI believe SCOTUS can take a case without going through the all the layers of appeals. Allowing the President to order it? No
October 31, 2018, 11:20 AM
ShaqlIt ain't called seperation of powers for no reason...
Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I'm unarmed.
Bart: Alright, we'll settle this like men, with our fists.
Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed.
October 31, 2018, 11:22 AM
sigcrazy7No. 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.
Demand not that events should happen as you wish; but wish them to happen as they do happen, and you will go on well. -Epictetus October 31, 2018, 11:22 AM
PowerSurgeNot just no, but hell no.
———————————————
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1
October 31, 2018, 11:26 AM
JALLENSupreme 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.
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson
"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown October 31, 2018, 11:28 AM
BBMWYes, 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.
October 31, 2018, 11:30 AM
BBMWIt'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...
October 31, 2018, 11:31 AM
jhe888No. It would alter the balance between the branches. If you don't think bypassing the CoAs matters, you are out of your mind.
The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. October 31, 2018, 11:52 AM
parabellumNo
October 31, 2018, 11:55 AM
DresdenNo. The Constitution was framed to prevent such interference.
October 31, 2018, 12:00 PM
RHINOWSO
October 31, 2018, 12:15 PM
bertoFuck 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?
October 31, 2018, 12:21 PM
bcereussNope.
I’m sorry, I meant “hell, no!”
October 31, 2018, 12:26 PM
RNshooterAlways imagine the other guy with any new power you propose.
Give Hillary that power? ((Shudder))
Bruce
"The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with." -Douglas Adams
“It is just as difficult and dangerous to try to free a people that wants to remain servile as it is to try to enslave a people that wants to remain free."
-Niccolo Machiavelli
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all. -Mencken
October 31, 2018, 03:35 PM
comet24Negative ghostrider.
_____________________________________
Because in the end, you won’t remember the time you spent working in the office or mowing your lawn. Climb that goddamn mountain. Jack Kerouac
October 31, 2018, 03:41 PM
slosigThis 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.
October 31, 2018, 03:45 PM
bobtheelfWould you have liked Obama to have that power? There's your answer.
October 31, 2018, 04:29 PM
Rick LeeWell, 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.
October 31, 2018, 06:53 PM
2AdefenderNo, no, no, no.
_________________________
2nd Amendment Defender
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting.