mattgruhn.bsky.social
Technology and politics. Cleveland native, transplanted to Chicago. Conflicted Cubs/Guardians fan.
16 posts
44 followers
638 following
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Per Curiam does not mean unanimous in SCOTUS parlance. We only know that Sotomayor and Gorsuch (who wrote separately) supported it, and at least 3 other justices did too.
comment in response to
post
Right, but if they’d granted the injunction, it would have pushed the effective date/arguments into the new admin, right?
comment in response to
post
Conveniently, it also means Trump’s DOJ (which I assume wouldn’t defend the law, based on his statements) won’t get to participate.
comment in response to
post
Interesting. Super expedited arguments instead of an injunction means Trump’s DOJ won’t get to participate. I wonder if that was a factor here.
comment in response to
post
But the right move strategically for Smith. Even if he disagreed with - and didn’t feel bound by - the OLC guidance, pursuing at this point would probably just lead to SCOTUS enshrining the OLC rule as precedent.
comment in response to
post
Which also leaves Trump with a lot of incentive to attempt a self-pardon before he leaves office.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
The other side of that coin, though, is that Trump was able to generate huge turnout with minimal ground game.
comment in response to
post
Ultimately it's vague language that has never been tested, meaning SCOTUS would get the final say. And after the immunity decision, I don't have a lot of hope that they'd constrain Trump.
comment in response to
post
If he has one chamber backing him, Scalia (with Roberts, Thomas, and Alito) suggested in Noel Canning that POTUS does have the power to adjourn both houses.
comment in response to
post
Roberts, Thomas, and Alito joined that opinion. Not hard to imagine Gorsuch, Kav, or ACB signing on.
comment in response to
post
He threatened this in 2020, and there's a Heritage write up on it.
He'd need a majority of one house to vote to adjourn for 10+ days. It's untested, but given the state of the courts, he might be on reasonably firm footing if he can get one house to vote for it.
comment in response to
post
Wouldn't it also require a majority of the House to support resolution to adjourn?
comment in response to
post
Trump threatened to use the Adjournment Clause in 2020, and Scalia's concurrence in Noel Canning sure made it sound like he thought POTUS had that power.
comment in response to
post
If he defames her again and she sues again, would she expect to win even more than that in a third round? Does the amount just keep going up until he keeps his mouth shut?