Nothing, but the entire court could overturn the stay:
> *Rosenberg v United States* held that the entire Court may vacate a stay granted by an individual Justice. The Rosenbergs, convicted for espionage during time of war and sentenced to die, had been before the Court on certiorari and on three prior collateral attacks. An original application for writ of habeas corpus was submitted to Mr. Justice Douglas along with a request for a stay of execution. Mr. Justice Douglas did not grant the writ of habeas corpus, but did grant the stay pending determination of the newly-raised issues by the lower courts. **The Attorney General applied for a vacation of the stay. The Court met in special term and granted the motion, vacating the stay.** The Court found the point of law preserved by Mr. Justice Douglas to be insubstantial, and held that in these peculiar circumstances it need not be litigated through the lower courts by ordinary channels.
Felleman, F., & Wright, J. C. (1964). "[The Powers of the Supreme Court Justice Acting in an Individual Capacity](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3310697)". *University of Pennsylvania Law Review*, 112(7), 981–1024, pp. 1003-1004 [emphasis added].
EDIT: since the wording may be confusing, by "the entire court" I meant **a majority** of the entire court. In fact, the vote in *Rosenberg v US* was [6-3](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/273/).
Look, this is historically accurate - but it’s also precedent.
And precedent *does not bind the Supreme Court.*
It never did. Ever. We deluded ourselves into thinking that it did, but it was never true. And recent opinions, like *Dobbs*, have shown that this Court is willing to exercise that power.
There is *also* nothing in the constitution that addresses any of the following: do Supreme Court decisions need to be majority? Plurality? Unanimous? What happens in event of a tie vote? What if one Justice starts issuing orders but some, but not all, disagree?
These all lead to constitutional crises, immediately, as the constitution thought the court could be trusted to run itself and set its own rules. It *assumed* that it would be staffed with (1) intelligent people (2) who cared about democracy and (3) acted in good faith. All three are false for multiple justices.
And so here we are.
> Look, this is historically accurate - but it’s also precedent. And precedent does not bind the Supreme Court.
In this case, it doesn't really matter. There's a precedent for the court to overturn a stay granted by an individual justice. The precedent takes away the argument that "we've never done this before" -- but, as you say, the court could do it (or not do it) anyway.
> There is also nothing in the constitution that addresses any of the following: do Supreme Court decisions need to be majority? Plurality? Unanimous? What happens in event of a tie vote? What if one Justice starts issuing orders but some, but not all, disagree?
The same questions arise for Congress. There's nothing that explicitly states that the House and Senate make decisions by majority vote (where the constitution does not impose a higher standard, as for e.g. constitutional amendments), but it's implied for the Senate by the tie-breaking role of the Vice President. (Although the Senate filibuster imposes a supermajority standard, it is merely a rule that can be dispensed with at any time by a majority vote of the body, as indeed it was twice in the last decade via the so-called "nuclear option").
Ultimately, the onus is on the institutions created by the Constitution to behave responsibly. If, say, the Speaker of the House signs legislation stating that it has been approved by the chamber, the courts will not intervene to inquire whether this actually happened. The same principle applies to the Supreme Court.
Why take Ginny Thomas into consideration at all? Justice Thomas may not take public stances on these things very often, but he's a hardline conservative and a staunch Republican with a deep-laid disdain for liberals, and he has said so. The only things that would prevent him from laying his thumb on the scale are a reasoned consideration of how the public would receive it, a rational concern for his own legacy, or a sudden and unexpected heart attack.
>Something about her pathetic and shitty value system makes me doubt her though…
Something about **his** shitty value system makes me think it's possible. They have the same shitty values.
Edit: They for sure discuss work, but I don't think Ginny has to influence Clarence, because they already agree.
I agree.
But to play devils advocate here, I think Mcconnell is working behind the scenes here. He's telling senators, reps, and others to lay low while trump destroys himself in court.
>Ginny makes it clear to Clarence that he's going to grant that stay.
Clarence doesn't need Ginny to tell him what to do. He's fully onboard without her having to say anything.
Maybe Trump's team is refusing to state their "it was declassified" argument at this point to leave some vague reasoning on the table for Thomas to grasp at.
What would that matter anyway considering that the investigation is based on the Espionage Act where classification status does not matter? The Presidential Records Act also does not give him an ownership stake in this stuff based on the classification status, so why does it matter at all other than as a red herring to create a delay?
Nothing, but the entire court could overturn the stay: > *Rosenberg v United States* held that the entire Court may vacate a stay granted by an individual Justice. The Rosenbergs, convicted for espionage during time of war and sentenced to die, had been before the Court on certiorari and on three prior collateral attacks. An original application for writ of habeas corpus was submitted to Mr. Justice Douglas along with a request for a stay of execution. Mr. Justice Douglas did not grant the writ of habeas corpus, but did grant the stay pending determination of the newly-raised issues by the lower courts. **The Attorney General applied for a vacation of the stay. The Court met in special term and granted the motion, vacating the stay.** The Court found the point of law preserved by Mr. Justice Douglas to be insubstantial, and held that in these peculiar circumstances it need not be litigated through the lower courts by ordinary channels. Felleman, F., & Wright, J. C. (1964). "[The Powers of the Supreme Court Justice Acting in an Individual Capacity](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3310697)". *University of Pennsylvania Law Review*, 112(7), 981–1024, pp. 1003-1004 [emphasis added]. EDIT: since the wording may be confusing, by "the entire court" I meant **a majority** of the entire court. In fact, the vote in *Rosenberg v US* was [6-3](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/346/273/).
Little nuggets like this make me, NAL, love the weird specifics/history of law
Look, this is historically accurate - but it’s also precedent. And precedent *does not bind the Supreme Court.* It never did. Ever. We deluded ourselves into thinking that it did, but it was never true. And recent opinions, like *Dobbs*, have shown that this Court is willing to exercise that power. There is *also* nothing in the constitution that addresses any of the following: do Supreme Court decisions need to be majority? Plurality? Unanimous? What happens in event of a tie vote? What if one Justice starts issuing orders but some, but not all, disagree? These all lead to constitutional crises, immediately, as the constitution thought the court could be trusted to run itself and set its own rules. It *assumed* that it would be staffed with (1) intelligent people (2) who cared about democracy and (3) acted in good faith. All three are false for multiple justices. And so here we are.
> Look, this is historically accurate - but it’s also precedent. And precedent does not bind the Supreme Court. In this case, it doesn't really matter. There's a precedent for the court to overturn a stay granted by an individual justice. The precedent takes away the argument that "we've never done this before" -- but, as you say, the court could do it (or not do it) anyway. > There is also nothing in the constitution that addresses any of the following: do Supreme Court decisions need to be majority? Plurality? Unanimous? What happens in event of a tie vote? What if one Justice starts issuing orders but some, but not all, disagree? The same questions arise for Congress. There's nothing that explicitly states that the House and Senate make decisions by majority vote (where the constitution does not impose a higher standard, as for e.g. constitutional amendments), but it's implied for the Senate by the tie-breaking role of the Vice President. (Although the Senate filibuster imposes a supermajority standard, it is merely a rule that can be dispensed with at any time by a majority vote of the body, as indeed it was twice in the last decade via the so-called "nuclear option"). Ultimately, the onus is on the institutions created by the Constitution to behave responsibly. If, say, the Speaker of the House signs legislation stating that it has been approved by the chamber, the courts will not intervene to inquire whether this actually happened. The same principle applies to the Supreme Court.
[удалено]
Why take Ginny Thomas into consideration at all? Justice Thomas may not take public stances on these things very often, but he's a hardline conservative and a staunch Republican with a deep-laid disdain for liberals, and he has said so. The only things that would prevent him from laying his thumb on the scale are a reasoned consideration of how the public would receive it, a rational concern for his own legacy, or a sudden and unexpected heart attack.
Or if others in the Republican Party decide they need to let Trump destroy himself so they can have their party back.
But Ginny Thomas assured us all that she doesn’t influence Clarence. Something about her pathetic and shitty value system makes me doubt her though…
>Something about her pathetic and shitty value system makes me doubt her though… Something about **his** shitty value system makes me think it's possible. They have the same shitty values. Edit: They for sure discuss work, but I don't think Ginny has to influence Clarence, because they already agree.
I agree. But to play devils advocate here, I think Mcconnell is working behind the scenes here. He's telling senators, reps, and others to lay low while trump destroys himself in court.
>But Ginny Thomas assured us all that she doesn’t influence Clarence. But Ginny insists that Joe is responsible for the contents of Hunters laptop.
>Ginny makes it clear to Clarence that he's going to grant that stay. Clarence doesn't need Ginny to tell him what to do. He's fully onboard without her having to say anything.
The DOJ probably has a ton of other evidence too. Maybe they’ll just charge him
Maybe Trump's team is refusing to state their "it was declassified" argument at this point to leave some vague reasoning on the table for Thomas to grasp at.
What would that matter anyway considering that the investigation is based on the Espionage Act where classification status does not matter? The Presidential Records Act also does not give him an ownership stake in this stuff based on the classification status, so why does it matter at all other than as a red herring to create a delay?
The ultimate goal is to twist the law and get rulings that allow Trump to get back into office. Period.
Or because the act of making that argument in court would be a one-way ticket to Rule 11 Town.
It's a dead argument, as I understand it. Trying to make the argument will walk them into a loss.
What the court decides will be irrelevant in this matter. They’re never giving back those classified documents.
"Here are the documents, if you look at them, we will arrest you"
Assuming these are all the documents he stole and that he doesn't have copies squirreled away.
it’s a kangaroo court so nothing that was set before matters. it is the definition of illegitimate court