- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
So, if the DC Appeals Court en banc reverses today's ruling...
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:53 pm
as it likely will, it means that both the Fourth and DC Districts agree, and the US Supreme Court doesn't necessarily have to resolve the issue. Correct?
I have further questions after that one, this time involving the court room characters.
I have further questions after that one, this time involving the court room characters.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 1:58 pm
12
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:54 pm to Rex
I can smell your fear, furry.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:55 pm to Rex
quote:
as it likely will,
That's what I think.
quote:
it means that both the Fourth and Ninth Districts agree
Fourth and D.C. Circuit. The Ninth has no involvement - yet.
quote:
the US Supreme Court doesn't necessarily have to resolve the issue.
The US Supreme Court doesn't have to resolve anything it doesn't want to - even if a circuit split remains. However, in this case, I see a cert grant as likely.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:56 pm to Rex
Rex;dr
Voted down!
Voted down!
Posted on 7/22/14 at 1:58 pm to Rex
With the exception of circumstances where the Court has original jurisdiction, all writ grants by the Supreme Court are discretionary. However, you are correct that the absence of a conflict in the circuits, one off the basis for a grant of writs is not present
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:00 pm to Rex
Why are some dogs such assholes?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:00 pm to Rex
quote:
this time involving the court room characters.
This isn't the neighborhood of make-believe.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:01 pm to Rex
The supreme court will not issue a writ of certiori if the ruling is reversed en banc.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The supreme court will not issue a writ of certiori if the ruling is reversed en banc.
I'm so glad you are privy to the conference discussions that you can make that bold claim.
I guess the Supreme's won't take on gay marriage either, right? There's no circuit split on that one.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:05 pm to FalseProphet
Dude on CNN was saying that if the en banc decision agrees with the other appeals court, then there will be no writ.
Maybe the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Maybe the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:08 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Dude on CNN was saying that if the en banc decision agrees with the other appeals court, then there will be no writ.
A circuit split is just one of the considerations for granting a writ. It makes it less likely that a writ will be granted, but no one, and that literally means no one, is privy to what the justices discuss in conference or what they consider in taking the cases.
The guy on CNN can say that all he wants, but he's just speculating.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:15 pm to Rex
Here's Dr Carson touching on the subject. I thought you might like to hear a possible angle of it getting to SCOTUS...
Carson interview on Fox
Also, he's thinking about running if you watch to the end.
Carson interview on Fox
Also, he's thinking about running if you watch to the end.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:15 pm to Rex
First Hobby Lobby, now this. Next thing you know your Obama phone will get turned off.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 2:52 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
The US Supreme Court doesn't have to resolve anything it doesn't want to - even if a circuit split remains. However, in this case, I see a cert grant as likely.
I agree. SCOTUS may want to take the case to have the final say on what the law says in the matter of subsidy eligibility, just as they did in hearing the constitutionality of ACA and (with the Hobby Lobby case) on whether an employer could be forced to pay for certain birth control methods.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 4:28 pm to Quidam65
I would imagine with how important this case is, the Supreme Court will take the case regardless of the circuit rulings
Posted on 7/22/14 at 4:34 pm to Rex
So, now my next question.... is anybody here naive enough to believe Bush I-appointed Judge Raymond Randolph when he said in his decision "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with great reluctance" ?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 4:48 pm to Rex
quote:
So, now my next question.... is anybody here naive enough to believe Bush I-appointed Judge Raymond Randolph when he said in his decision "We reach this conclusion, frankly, with great reluctance" ?
Well it appears you're naive enough to believe the dissent, who wants to rule that the law doesn't say what it says, in order to expand the amount of subsidies taxpayers have to pay?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 4:53 pm to Quidam65
The 7th and 9th also have cases outstanding. This could take quite a while to sort out, perhaps into the next presidency, whoever that is.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 5:03 pm to Jim Rockford
The SCOTUS doesn't have to wait on them. I promise the petition in the 4th Circuit case is already being drafted.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 6:27 pm to Rex
Why are people downvoting Rex on this one? It's a legitimate question and a good topic for discussion.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News