Comments on: Analysis: Major test of presidential power

Comments on: Analysis: Major test of presidential power http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/ The Supreme Court of the United States blog Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6897 Anonymous Sun, 31 Jul 2005 16:58:42 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6897 <strong>hot matures</strong> <a href="http://bulk.dnip.net" rel="nofollow">milf older</a> mature sluts <a href="http://bulk.dnip.net/milf.html" rel="nofollow">hot milf</a> mature escorts <a href="http://bulk.dnip.net/milf-hunter.html" rel="nofollow">hot milfs</a> mom mature son gallery mom mature son gallery <a href="http://bulk.dnip.net/milfs.htm... hot matures

milf older mature sluts hot milf mature escorts hot milfs mom mature son gallery mom mature son gallery ]]> By: Approaching Zion http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6896 Approaching Zion Wed, 25 May 2005 21:26:28 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6896 <strong>Medellin and Garamendi</strong> With the Supreme Court DIGging, (Denied as Improvidently Granted) Medellin, the big question is what the power of the President is to issue an order compelling Texas to give Jose Medellin his rights to contact his consulate under the Vienna Conventio... Medellin and Garamendi

With the Supreme Court DIGging, (Denied as Improvidently Granted) Medellin, the big question is what the power of the President is to issue an order compelling Texas to give Jose Medellin his rights to contact his consulate under the Vienna Conventio…

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6894 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 23 May 2005 23:09:21 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6894 On the presidential power point, if the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals goes ahead and considers and rejects Medellin's claim on the merits (which arguably it has already done), then the question of whether the President can order it to consider the claim need not be resolved by SCOTUS. I expect they prefer it that way. On the presidential power point, if the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals goes ahead and considers and rejects Medellin’s claim on the merits (which arguably it has already done), then the question of whether the President can order it to consider the claim need not be resolved by SCOTUS. I expect they prefer it that way.

]]> By: Kent Scheidegger http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6893 Kent Scheidegger Mon, 23 May 2005 23:04:27 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6893 According to the guru (i.e., Stern, et al.), "Most members of the Court have felt that the other five Justices who did not vote to grant are thereafter precluded from voting to dismiss the petition as improvidently granted in the absence of additional intervening factors 'which were not known or fully appreciated at the time certiorari was granted.'" According to the guru (i.e., Stern, et al.), “Most members of the Court have felt that the other five Justices who did not vote to grant are thereafter precluded from voting to dismiss the petition as improvidently granted in the absence of additional intervening factors ‘which were not known or fully appreciated at the time certiorari was granted.’”

]]> By: PKB http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6892 PKB Mon, 23 May 2005 22:33:39 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6892 That's an interesting notion, Jon. On further reflection, I agree the only workable rule is a simple majority requirement. A supermajority requirement wouldn't work in cases where more than four Justices vote to grant cert. That’s an interesting notion, Jon. On further reflection, I agree the only workable rule is a simple majority requirement. A supermajority requirement wouldn’t work in cases where more than four Justices vote to grant cert.

]]> By: american black http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6895 american black Mon, 23 May 2005 22:09:24 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6895 <strong>Clash Of The Titans Delayed</strong> The Supreme Court avoided a dispute over whether international law is binding on American courts. In an unsigned decision, justices dismissed as premature the case of Jose Medellin, who argued he was entitled to a federal court hearing on whether Clash Of The Titans Delayed

The Supreme Court avoided a dispute over whether international law is binding on American courts. In an unsigned decision, justices dismissed as premature the case of Jose Medellin, who argued he was entitled to a federal court hearing on whether

]]> By: Jon http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6891 Jon Mon, 23 May 2005 19:11:53 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6891 Responding to PKB: Maybe one of the 5 votes to DIG a case has to be from a justice who originally cast one of the 4 votes to grant cert. That would preserve the rule of 4 for cert petitions, while preserving (at least on paper) the idea that the court is governed by a simple majority. Responding to PKB:

Maybe one of the 5 votes to DIG a case has to be from a justice who originally cast one of the 4 votes to grant cert. That would preserve the rule of 4 for cert petitions, while preserving (at least on paper) the idea that the court is governed by a simple majority.

]]> By: Steve Thomas http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6890 Steve Thomas Mon, 23 May 2005 19:01:50 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6890 cfh asks: "If Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens all said that they favored a stay in the Supreme Court, why wasn't that a majority?" Because they didn't agree about which court the stay would operate in. Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer and Stevens all favored a stay of the proceeding at the Supreme Court, whereas Souter wanted to remand to the Fifth Circuit subject to a stay in that court until the Texas state courts had completed their proceedings. There were thus only 4 Justices in favor of simply staying the Court's proceeding. Since they couldn't achieve that aim, the four who would have preferred to stay the current proceeding split between their secondary options of either dismissing or remanding. cfh asks: “If Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens all said that they favored a stay in the Supreme Court, why wasn’t that a majority?” Because they didn’t agree about which court the stay would operate in. Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer and Stevens all favored a stay of the proceeding at the Supreme Court, whereas Souter wanted to remand to the Fifth Circuit subject to a stay in that court until the Texas state courts had completed their proceedings. There were thus only 4 Justices in favor of simply staying the Court’s proceeding. Since they couldn’t achieve that aim, the four who would have preferred to stay the current proceeding split between their secondary options of either dismissing or remanding.

]]> By: Julian http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6889 Julian Mon, 23 May 2005 17:52:00 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6889 Lyle pretty much captures the importance of this disposition. It is worth pointing out that no matter how you slice it, there are four, probably five, votes for certiorari after the Texas courts issue their opinion. So this case will almost certainly be back before the Court. Lyle pretty much captures the importance of this disposition. It is worth pointing out that no matter how you slice it, there are four, probably five, votes for certiorari after the Texas courts issue their opinion. So this case will almost certainly be back before the Court.

]]> By: cfh http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6888 cfh Mon, 23 May 2005 17:51:08 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6888 If Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens all said that they favored a stay in the Supreme Court, why wasn't that a majority? Or is Lyle Denniston mistaken in his description of the justices' views on that point? If Ginsburg, Scalia, Souter, Breyer, and Stevens all said that they favored a stay in the Supreme Court, why wasn’t that a majority? Or is Lyle Denniston mistaken in his description of the justices’ views on that point?

]]> By: PKB http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/comment-page-1/#comment-6887 PKB Mon, 23 May 2005 17:04:13 +0000 http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-major-test-of-presidential-power/#comment-6887 Why can five Justices DIG a case if it only takes four votes to grant cert? It seems the Court should require six votes to DIG a case in order to preserve the rule of four with respect to cert petitions. Why can five Justices DIG a case if it only takes four votes to grant cert? It seems the Court should require six votes to DIG a case in order to preserve the rule of four with respect to cert petitions.