Via law prof. Lee Kovarsky:
Since people are asking, I think the most likely outcome - and I'm cheating because I'm compounding possibilities here - is that SCOTUS either denies the stay or treats the stay app as a cert petition and grants.
People who think #SCOTUS is gonna drag this out are nuts.
(this is someone you quoted)
> People who think #SCOTUS is gonna drag this out are nuts.
I am not nuts and I can very much see the supremes dragging this out past the election. The mechanism: grant cert, briefings filed and oral arguments heard on a reasonable schedule (by SC standards). Then ignore all that content because they know up front that on the last day of their term (approx June 30) they are going to remand to lower court on a technicality, knowing that they then go on a nearly 4 month summer break, and that when this case comes back to them they won't even be able to look at it until October, and then slow-moving business as usual makes it easy to stall a few more weeks til past the election. Far-fetched conspiracy thinking, you say? They did exactly that with at least one of mangolini's tax documents cases (I forget whether it was Mazars or congressional oversight or both).
1/2
The rightwing majority of the supremes have no regard or respect for mangolini, but his one use to them is appointing their successors. Justices care very much who fills "their" seat, and Alito and Clarence Sale are getting long in the tooth. About the only place where Mangolini reliably did was he was told was in putting duly approved federalist society members on the bench.
Now, do I actually think the SC is going to do this shadow pocket punt (again)? I assign it a low probability, maybe 10%. Most likely scenario where this comes to pass is if every other criminal (prison time criminal, the NY dirty bookkeeping hush money one doesn't qualify) trial is also stalled or punted past the election. It would damage their reputation among some like me who know and recognize shadow docket shenanigans, but then nothing short of a purge would restore their reputation with m. But the notion of punting past the election is not nuts.
@artemesia You're talking as if this is all up to the Supreme Court, but it's absolutely not. Checks and balances in the US system adamantly don't give them such unilateral authority.
The court can only work with what is brought in front of them by others, executive branches and petitioners. They play such an enormous role in this whole process, including the timeline.
And they can't name their own successors. If we elect people who approve the nominees that they would prefer, well, we get the government we vote for.
You're right that the Supreme Court might not care to rush these cases, as is their prerogative, but even that leaves all sorts of other action ranging from other executive actions in governments throughout the country through other court actions, where lower courts do have the ability to push back on a Supreme Court that is moving too slowly.
But mainly, should the court kick a case back on a technicality than that speaks to problems with the case itself. Again, something the court doesn't have unilateral authority over.
@volkris @GottaLaff
There is so much counterfactualing here and outright lying about the content of my post immediately above, that I'm not even going to bother debunking. I also recall this is not the first time you spewed a counterfactual, lying, strawman shitpost at me.
You are not worth my time.
<PLONK>