They’re not allowing appeal. That’s exactly what they’re saying. There hasn’t been an appeal at SCOTUS yet because when he requested one before, they said no they will not hear it. They denied his writ of certiorari. Once that happens, you generally get one single petition for them to reconsider it, filed within 25 days of the initial denial of writ, and the reconsideration is virtually never granted. That’s what this is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44
They denied his writ of certiorari the first time. This was his one petition to have them reconsider that, which they also denied. He will likely keep trying to file, because he is a manchild, but it won’t even make it passed the law clerks because he’s used his petitions. It’ll just get auto-denied.
This happens thousands of times per year. The Court denies certiorari for some 7000-8000 cases per year. We don’t get headlines for them because it’s extremely routine. We’re only getting this one because it’s the President and he gets clicks.
If he keeps filing, is there a point where the court starts to discipline his attorney for wasting court time?
Like I assume practically speaking subsequent filings would make clerks waste their time, and probably at least speak to a justice given the sitting POTUS is involved. But at some point it seems like the lawyer submitting any subsequent appeal is just asking for a SCOTUS justice to write the bar association a negative recommendation about their conduct.
That, I’m not entirely sure. The Supreme Court has its own bar association that an attorney must be a member of in order to file cases with the Supreme Court or argue cases in the Court. I don’t think there have been many attorneys try to get themselves disbarred from SCOTUS.
Yeah the AP is really good at getting breaking news out, with just the bare minimum factual information. They don’t go into any detail or editorialization.
Like, they also mention the other case, where the $83M verdict was awarded, but don’t go into any editorial opinion on it. Just that SCOTUS hasn’t acted on that appeal yet.
So we are going to hear more headlines when they do review that petition here in a couple of months and probably be back where we are today with “Didn’t they just deny that a few weeks ago?”. When in reality it’s two different cases.
They’re not allowing appeal. That’s exactly what they’re saying. There hasn’t been an appeal at SCOTUS yet because when he requested one before, they said no they will not hear it. They denied his writ of certiorari. Once that happens, you generally get one single petition for them to reconsider it, filed within 25 days of the initial denial of writ, and the reconsideration is virtually never granted. That’s what this is. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44
They denied his writ of certiorari the first time. This was his one petition to have them reconsider that, which they also denied. He will likely keep trying to file, because he is a manchild, but it won’t even make it passed the law clerks because he’s used his petitions. It’ll just get auto-denied.
This happens thousands of times per year. The Court denies certiorari for some 7000-8000 cases per year. We don’t get headlines for them because it’s extremely routine. We’re only getting this one because it’s the President and he gets clicks.
If he keeps filing, is there a point where the court starts to discipline his attorney for wasting court time?
Like I assume practically speaking subsequent filings would make clerks waste their time, and probably at least speak to a justice given the sitting POTUS is involved. But at some point it seems like the lawyer submitting any subsequent appeal is just asking for a SCOTUS justice to write the bar association a negative recommendation about their conduct.
That, I’m not entirely sure. The Supreme Court has its own bar association that an attorney must be a member of in order to file cases with the Supreme Court or argue cases in the Court. I don’t think there have been many attorneys try to get themselves disbarred from SCOTUS.
Thanks for the clarification - it wasn’t evident in the article.
Yeah the AP is really good at getting breaking news out, with just the bare minimum factual information. They don’t go into any detail or editorialization.
Like, they also mention the other case, where the $83M verdict was awarded, but don’t go into any editorial opinion on it. Just that SCOTUS hasn’t acted on that appeal yet.
So we are going to hear more headlines when they do review that petition here in a couple of months and probably be back where we are today with “Didn’t they just deny that a few weeks ago?”. When in reality it’s two different cases.