It means the SC takes a case in an expedited fashion by making a ruling before it goes through the lower appellate court. Is there precedent for it? Well, yes there is. The Court saw fit to grant it to a number of Repub controlled states who sued to stop Biden's EO cancelling student debt. Then, by way of novel legal reasoning, the Court overturned the lower court ruling. The Court also granted cert before judgement when Biden ordered an eviction ban to prevent people from being thrown out of their homes during COVID. IN THREE WEEKS it ruled people could indeed by thrown out of their homes even though they had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Those are two recent examples when this Court has moved quickly to rule on cases of national significance. National significance like a presidential election. But when Jack Smith asked the Court for cert before judgement in the immunity case it said, or the conservative majority said, no. Wasting three months before deciding to take the case (after the appellate court ruled against Trump), which in and of itself is a travesty of justice based on the law, only to set a schedule for oral arguments SEVEN weeks from now. John Roberts pretends to be concerned about the legacy of the Court bearing his name as chief justice. Yet he and his fellow conservatives have slow walked this case because they know doing so greatly reduces the likelihood time will allow it to go to trial before the election. Just what Trump wants.
It looks to me like John Roberts has come to the realization that there is no way to save the legacy of this court as the most activist in history, so he has decided to just go with the flow. I don't think he's even trying anymore. I may be wrong, but my personal perception is that, surprisingly, Brett Kavanaugh is more concerned about the legacy of this Supreme court than Roberts is. Not enough to pass up an opportunity to forward his ideology by legislating from the bench. But just enough to try to guard appearances. I think Roberts has given up even on that.
You may very well be right about John. He stands to preside over the radically conservative shift to the right the country has seen in a century. Most all of the major decisions being harmful for the country.
While I realize that the Smith case is solely about the election by those bringing the charges, it is not legally intertwined in the election in any way. What makes you think that the USSC is supposed to tie this case to the election? Legally, they have nothing to do with each other and it would be highly improper to connect them.
But its OK for landlords through no fault of their own having to cover the overhead of housing people who don't pay rent? It's OK for the banks through no fault of their own to have to deal with mortgage payments not made by landlords? What if people were laid off because of this financial loss down the line. That is also no fault of their own. Where did government get the power to cause landlords to subsidize housing? Is there some secret article in the constitution? The responsibility for keeping a job or replacing a job falls on the individual, not the individual's landlord or government. I've had to replace jobs in my life. I didn't like it but I took the responsibility to deal with it. I've had some awful temporary employment between jobs. It is one of the prices we pay for being a free society.
The point is not to disagree with the ruling but rather to point out the speed with which they made it.
If the lower court hadn't ****ed up their ruling (for political reasons), the the Supreme Court wouldn't have to take up the case.
They're just mad because the system isn't working out in their favor. You know how Leftists are such sore losers...lol
Actually Lying Jack Smith and Dirtbag Merrick slow walked this by taking two and half years to bring the action, and then tried to deliberately time it to interfere with the election, but, it looks like they screwed up a bit and shouldn't have waited two and half years to bring the charges.
