Yeah it’s a real neck-and-neck race between “there’s no clear legal path to even get to scotus” and “alito says it’s overturned because fuck you that’s why”
My instinct is that they wait to see if he wins. If he wins it’s part of the coronation, if he loses they no longer have any use for him.
There is truly no plausible path to review in the Supreme Court before the election unless they want to literally, not figuratively, throw out 245 years of practice about SCOTUS review of state court decisions.
You do not decide the merits through the shadow docket, by definition. If you can find me a merits decision reversing a state court final judgment through the shadow docket, I will take it. But I don’t see one.
Right but they directionally/procedurally shape or skew or avoid merits decisions through the shadow docket. Literally why the term exists as an item of controversy.
None of that has an ability to affect the question of whether a criminal conviction is affirmed or reversed. There is no shading to do there. If they want him to not be convicted they need to write “judgment vacated”, which is a merits decision.
There are rules that they are happy to ignore (substantive rules) and rules that they observe because they don’t limit their ability to rule however they want in the end, but give an air of legitimacy. This is the second kind, which is why I predict they follow it.
There is truly no plausible path to review in the Supreme Court before the election unless they want to literally, not figuratively, throw out 245 years of practice about SCOTUS review of state court decisions.
Oh, that counts as “thrown out,” which is why I was confused. I see a difference between a one-time merits rule and “we are ignoring our jurisdiction.” Bush was insane on the substance but procedurally easy.
Abandoning procedure on this level is abandoning the pretense of being a court.
They were reviewing a decision of the Florida Supreme Court there, which was expedited because everyone agreed there was a ticking clock. There’s not even going to be a decision by the Appellate Division before the election unless something really weird happens.
I hope you’re right but the point is they don’t have to throw out anything, they can just say “it’s a special circumstance just this once” and no one can say different
What do you mean by “throw out”? The court is “final and so infallible” in every case and was also in Texas v. Pennsylvania. The question is whether they want to pretend to be a court, and I say they do.
