Between this site and a few others, I must have typed a dozen times "Go to my blog, find the Criminal Law FAQ page under the resources tab of my blog and read the entire page."
Why?
Because dozens of people are saying the exact same phrases.
That's what happens in group think ecosystems.
If you are saying the same thing, in the same words, that hundreds of other people are saying, you have lost your way.
@Teri_Kanefield I’m sorry you have to deal with so much of that right now.
I’m looking forward to your insight on today’s news, esp. in the context of your earlier statement that them granting the stay seemed remote. You’re really good at distilling the machinations of the courts for us laypeople and while I wouldn’t say I’m on the ledge, my nerves could benefit from your perspective.
What are your thoughts on what this portends about a decision? Is it thoroughness or something dangerous?
@thadd 5 justices granting a stay was remote.
Remote doesn't mean impossible.
I was not part of their meetings. I am not a mind reader.
People can speculate on what they are thinking and why, but it is pure speculation.
Because they have ruled against immunity in lesser instance (like executive privilege) I don't expect them to grant immunity. They had opportunities before now to do so.
Why they want oral arguments, I don't know and neither does anyone else.
@Teri_Kanefield Thanks for the response. As I said before, your insight to how the courts work is immensely valuable to people like me.
I totally get not knowing what they’re thinking. I think that because folks like you who provide explainers and rationale make these topics approachable, it’s easy to slip into a mindset that you also have some insider awareness of what these actions imply about how they’ll rule.
Thanks for always keeping us informed and, more importantly, grounded!
Teri Kanefield
Thadd Selden