Why do the courts play this silly delay game on a case that only has one
side.

trump claims he can do anything he wants as prez. That's ridiculous. If
that were the case, Joe Biden could have him arrested, could confiscate
his assets, and then shoot him to death.

I can see giving the plaintfiff some time to file arguments, but we all
know there are no good arguments. So why does the news say that, IF
they act quickly, they can have a decision in 2 weeks. Why should it
take more than 2 days?

Why did the USSC deny cert. Do they imagine that the appeals court will
find some good argument that they can't find? Or are they trying to
delay things so that he'll be nominated and elected berfore the trial?

In general there are many serious cases where people have a critical
need for an answer that take iiac 6 months from the time they are argued
until the decision is announced. I know sometimes they have to discuss
it and try to persuede one another, but I'm sure that many times they
know what they will thing by the time they read the briefs and certaily
after the oral arguments. Still they keep people waiting a long time.
Is it just to look important?

I might not have asked these questions 20 years ago, but and I never
would have even though what follows 25 years ago, but the court has been
going to the dogs for decades.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-supreme-court-maybe-loss/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:a6qpoip5fc0116vi8410atttkhlhlvcfcp@4ax.com...

Why do the courts play this silly delay game on a case that only has one >side.

trump claims he can do anything he wants as prez. That's ridiculous. If
that were the case, Joe Biden could have him arrested, could confiscate
his assets, and then shoot him to death.

I can see giving the plaintfiff some time to file arguments, but we all
know there are no good arguments. So why does the news say that, IF
they act quickly, they can have a decision in 2 weeks. Why should it
take more than 2 days?

Why did the USSC deny cert. Do they imagine that the appeals court will
find some good argument that they can't find? Or are they trying to
delay things so that he'll be nominated and elected berfore the trial?

Maybe because the USSC has its own workload and backlog of cases to get through, including the likelihood of having to take the Colorado primary
ballot case on an expedited basis. The SC can't take every case, and the normal procedure is to let cases play out in lower courts before they step
in.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:umkbsd$f3bh$1@dont-email.me:

Why did the USSC deny cert. Do they imagine that the appeals court
will find some good argument that they can't find? Or are they
trying to delay things so that he'll be nominated and elected berfore
the trial?

Maybe because the USSC has its own workload and backlog of cases to
get through, including the likelihood of having to take the Colorado
primary ballot case on an expedited basis. The SC can't take every
case, and the normal procedure is to let cases play out in lower
courts before they step in.

Now that's just wrong. Up to the middle or late part of the 20th century,
the Supreme Court was taking about 100 cases per year. These days it's
about half of that. They could do a lot more than they are currently
doing.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote in message news:XnsB0E8BECAAE54Fspamtraplexregiacom@130.133.4.11...

"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:umkbsd$f3bh$1@dont-email.me:

Why did the USSC deny cert. Do they imagine that the appeals court
will find some good argument that they can't find? Or are they
trying to delay things so that he'll be nominated and elected berfore
the trial?

Maybe because the USSC has its own workload and backlog of cases to
get through, including the likelihood of having to take the Colorado
primary ballot case on an expedited basis. The SC can't take every
case, and the normal procedure is to let cases play out in lower
courts before they step in.

Now that's just wrong. Up to the middle or late part of the 20th century,
the Supreme Court was taking about 100 cases per year. These days it's
about half of that. They could do a lot more than they are currently
doing.

I don't have any stats on this, but I think the average worker today
probably works far fewer hours per week than they did 20 years ago. It wouldn't surprise me if the Court is just following the national trend on
this.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)