Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,147 posts)
47. You said certiorari had been granted. It hadn't and you have to know that by now. Not even the same case.
Tue Dec 9, 2025, 01:32 AM
Dec 2025

Again, show me the petition for cert you claim was filed months ago. You haven't because you can't because it doesn't exist.

In fact, the case in which cert was sought and granted last week isn't even the same case in which you claim cert was granted last June.

The partial stay decision issued in June addressed challenges to the nationwide injunctions granted by three different district courts in three separate cases, each assigned a separate Supreme Court docket number but consolidated for resolution of the challenged nationwide injunction.
Trump v. Casa, Inc., Docket No. 24A884, arising in the District of Maryland
Trump v. Washington, Docket No. 24A885, arising in the Western District of Washington
Trump v New Jersey, Docket No. 24A886, arising in the District Court of Massachusetts

Here is a link to the docket for the cases addressed in the June partial stay order:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a884.html

The cert petition granted last week was filed in a completely separate case, Trump v. Barbara, Docket No.25-365, arising in the US District Court of New Hampshire. Here's a link to that docket.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-365.html

Finally, I'll note again that in her dissent to the June partial stay order, Justice Sotomayor expressed concern as to whether there would ever be a petition for cert filed in the cases before the Court, stating on page 41 that "There is a serious question, moreover, whether this Court will ever get the chance to rule on the constitutionality of a policy like the Citizenship Order." That would be a very strange thing for her to write if cert had "already" been granted.

Finally, why did I find it interesting that no dissents were noted? Well, for one thing, folks tend to be curious as to whether or not any of the justices expressed separate views with respect to the grant or denial of cert. Despite your unfounded belief that I had some ulterior motive, that's it. While we know that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan all believe that the executive order is unconstitutional, and there is no reason to think they have changed their minds, we don't know whether or not they opposed or supported the grant of cert. There are reasons for not them not to have opposed it given that the issue was arising in multiple courts and denying cert, which has no precedntial value, would not have stopped such cases from going forward at considerable cost and with a modicum of uncertainty for the plaintiffs. Having the Supreme Court address the matter once and for all without waiting for case after case to come down may have been reason for granting cert, although none of us can say for sure. All we know, which is all I pointed out, is that none of the justices noted a dissent to the grant of cert. If having that information offends you, so be it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

SCOTUS Sycophant Six plan to tamper with birthright citizenship, otherwise dobleremolque Dec 2025 #1
Pretty sure we all know the answer Endlessmike56 Dec 2025 #2
You're exactly right. PSPS Dec 2025 #7
13th, 14th and 15th are invalid? Retrograde Dec 2025 #13
He'll cite another 17th century Brit jurist wolfie001 Dec 2025 #25
'Executive Orders as Lawmaking' needs to end C_U_L8R Dec 2025 #3
This court, this regime 31st Street Bridge Dec 2025 #4
They are making their move to completely take over our laws bluestarone Dec 2025 #5
Precedence... Republicans say that Hitler did some good things. Norrrm Dec 2025 #6
I have to believe they will rule against Trump iemanja Dec 2025 #8
Impeaching them would just have the Republicans blocking it (nt) muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #9
I didn't mean now iemanja Dec 2025 #14
Impeachment needs two thirds in the Senate muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #17
You're probably right. iemanja Dec 2025 #21
Such a ruling would instantly make the court powerless and irrelevant Fiendish Thingy Dec 2025 #11
Has a transition team been assigned for when he, well, you know, croaks. twodogsbarking Dec 2025 #10
Roughly like this? muriel_volestrangler Dec 2025 #12
No dissents to the grant of certiorari were noted. onenote Dec 2025 #15
SCOTUS already granted certiorari months ago for the injunction issue (with vociferous dissents from the 3 liberals). SunSeeker Dec 2025 #29
You are mistaken. onenote Dec 2025 #32
It is you who is mistaken. There is absolutely no basis to suggest that Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have flipped. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #33
I'm absolutely, positively not wrong. onenote Dec 2025 #35
Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan have not flipped. You are dead wrong in suggesting they did. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #36
Wow. Just wow. onenote Dec 2025 #38
You started this be saying no dissents were noted. What was your point other than to suggest they flipped? SunSeeker Dec 2025 #39
My point was to make clear no one had noted a dissent. Nothing more or less. onenote Dec 2025 #40
So you just made a pointless post. Got it. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #41
And you stand by your lie about when cert was granted. Got it. nt onenote Dec 2025 #43
I didn't lie about when cert was granted. I'm not the one telling lies here. nt SunSeeker Dec 2025 #44
Yeah you did. onenote Dec 2025 #45
No I didn't. As I said, the prior ruling, with 3 dissents, involved the exact same Executive Order. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #46
You said certiorari had been granted. It hadn't and you have to know that by now. Not even the same case. onenote Dec 2025 #47
The cases are all about the same birthright citizenship EO. It's all a bullshit game by the SCOTUS conservatives. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #48
john brown's body struggle4progress Dec 2025 #16
Battle Cry of Freedom struggle4progress Dec 2025 #18
Marching Through Georgia struggle4progress Dec 2025 #19
Nazi Punks Fuck Off struggle4progress Dec 2025 #20
This is the litmus test case I have been fearing. TomSlick Dec 2025 #22
Originalists, my ass! WTF is there to decide? OMGWTF Dec 2025 #23
While they are at it just give him immunity..............oh yeah the 6 maga POS already did that........... turbinetree Dec 2025 #24
Absolutely disgusting. There is no reason to take up Trump's patently ridiculous argument. SunSeeker Dec 2025 #26
They took this case in order to overturn the law. johnnyfins Dec 2025 #27
It just takes four to agree to take a case Dangling0826 Dec 2025 #28
Asking seriously: which is easier... Shipwack Dec 2025 #30
Expansion is by simple Congressional legislation. Blasphemer Dec 2025 #34
Practical Aspect Considerations DallasNE Dec 2025 #31
Imo, fwiw, which is nothing... lonely bird Dec 2025 #37
These people are partisan political operatives... RetiredParatrooper Dec 2025 #42
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Supreme Court agrees to d...»Reply #47