There was some talk that there might be some notable action today, perhaps granting cases for next term, but the usual practice of grants on Friday, boredom on Monday (Tuesday with holiday) was followed as a whole. The big news is basically that SCOTUS did not vote to "fast track" a major ACA case that some liberal minded sorts thought should be taken. Overall, there was a decent argument not to take the case yet though the net result of that does help the Republicans/Trump by punting the issue until after the election. OTOH, it is very well an election issue since it involves denying people of health care.
There was some odds and ends that as I say as a rule are of some interest and should be clarified by a FAQ. There is also an interesting case flagged here by the "Jost on Justice" blogger and the page can be found here. Justice Breyer went along but noted there was a conflict in the circuits and that he thinks it would be a good natter for the Rules Committee involved in setting the rules of proceedings to reconsider. A bit of triva: not only was the dissent below (it was a conservative leaning panel in a liberal leaning circuit) was on the Scalia Seat short list (Obama edition) but a case involved Rep. Biaggi, who was the grandfather of the current state senator (my own) of New York.
The Supreme Court hears three cases this week, including a possibly important religious funding of schools case tomorrow as Chief Justice Roberts presides over the impeachment trial in the afternoon/evening. On that front, the head impeachment manager, Rep. Schiff, was excellent. The others were somewhat of a mixed bag though mostly put forth good cases in a professional detailed way with visual aids. The Trump team overall had talking points and bluster mixed with b.s. Various requests for documents and witnesses were rejected party-line votes while the Democrats used their argument time to talk about the case as a whole. Roberts followed precedent and served a ministerial role as "presiding" officer, a role in other impeachments that would be done by the vice president or the pro tempore of the Senate.
The Republicans want arguments first, then votes on witnesses, Schiff calling that back-ass backwards or some such thing. Thus, a series of amendments that pushed the final vote past 1AM with party line votes each time, except for Susan Collins joining the Democrats once when the managers asked for more time to answer motions. After midnight, bad boy Nadler came in to call out the lies of the Trump team, which led to umbrage from them including a lay-up for Schiff when the White House counsel -- who given his job arguably shouldn't defend Trump alone here -- said Trump was a man of his word. Roberts then admonished, including with a homely old precedent involving use of "pettifoggery," each side to be nice. This went over real well -- both sides do it! -- on Twitter.
The rules passed 53-47 (party line) and everyone went to bed.
— Kenneth Jost (@jostonjustice) January 21, 2020
There was some odds and ends that as I say as a rule are of some interest and should be clarified by a FAQ. There is also an interesting case flagged here by the "Jost on Justice" blogger and the page can be found here. Justice Breyer went along but noted there was a conflict in the circuits and that he thinks it would be a good natter for the Rules Committee involved in setting the rules of proceedings to reconsider. A bit of triva: not only was the dissent below (it was a conservative leaning panel in a liberal leaning circuit) was on the Scalia Seat short list (Obama edition) but a case involved Rep. Biaggi, who was the grandfather of the current state senator (my own) of New York.
The Supreme Court hears three cases this week, including a possibly important religious funding of schools case tomorrow as Chief Justice Roberts presides over the impeachment trial in the afternoon/evening. On that front, the head impeachment manager, Rep. Schiff, was excellent. The others were somewhat of a mixed bag though mostly put forth good cases in a professional detailed way with visual aids. The Trump team overall had talking points and bluster mixed with b.s. Various requests for documents and witnesses were rejected party-line votes while the Democrats used their argument time to talk about the case as a whole. Roberts followed precedent and served a ministerial role as "presiding" officer, a role in other impeachments that would be done by the vice president or the pro tempore of the Senate.
The Republicans want arguments first, then votes on witnesses, Schiff calling that back-ass backwards or some such thing. Thus, a series of amendments that pushed the final vote past 1AM with party line votes each time, except for Susan Collins joining the Democrats once when the managers asked for more time to answer motions. After midnight, bad boy Nadler came in to call out the lies of the Trump team, which led to umbrage from them including a lay-up for Schiff when the White House counsel -- who given his job arguably shouldn't defend Trump alone here -- said Trump was a man of his word. Roberts then admonished, including with a homely old precedent involving use of "pettifoggery," each side to be nice. This went over real well -- both sides do it! -- on Twitter.
The rules passed 53-47 (party line) and everyone went to bed.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!