Comments on: Court to hear money laundering case http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11150 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:43:00 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11150 "I don't think they want to leave in place a state court decision about the president's power in foreign affairs." Which is why they needed to (and now have) take it for full briefing and argument. “I don’t think they want to leave in place a state court decision about the president’s power in foreign affairs.”

Which is why they needed to (and now have) take it for full briefing and argument.

]]> By: r.friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11149 r.friedman Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:31:36 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11149 <p>Kent--</p> <p>I don't think they want to leave in place a state court decision about the president's power in foreign affairs.</p> <p>roger friedman</p> Kent–

I don’t think they want to leave in place a state court decision about the president’s power in foreign affairs.

roger friedman

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11148 Kent Scheidegger Tue, 24 Apr 2007 17:07:22 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11148 <i>Medellin</i> has been relisted for Friday, April 27. Medellin has been relisted for Friday, April 27.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11147 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 23 Apr 2007 19:30:25 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11147 How do you figure that, Roger? If they do not find the case distinguishable from <i>Sanchez-Llamas</i>, they should simply deny cert. No per curiam needed. If they are going to decide an issue not decided in that case, they definitely need to take it for full briefing and argument. How do you figure that, Roger? If they do not find the case distinguishable from Sanchez-Llamas, they should simply deny cert. No per curiam needed. If they are going to decide an issue not decided in that case, they definitely need to take it for full briefing and argument.

]]> By: r.friedman http://www.scotusblog.com/2007/04/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11146 r.friedman Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:07:32 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/court-to-hear-money-laundering-case/#comment-11146 <p>Re Medellin, look for a per curiam based on Sanchez-Llamas, but without adopting any language regarding executive power.</p> <p>roger friedman</p> Re Medellin, look for a per curiam based on Sanchez-Llamas, but without adopting any language regarding executive power.

roger friedman

]]>