Let’s say Trump had delayed his revised travel ban because he wanted to get his nominee on the Supreme Court first to ensure better odds of that body finding it constitutional. OK, Gorsuch takes his seat on the bench and now the President issues his ban and ‘for reasons of national security’ wants that ban to pass through the lower courts and get to SCOTUS as quickly as possible.
Does he have the power to hurry things along a little?
Why would he be able to? The Executive Branch and Judicial Branch are still considered separate branches of government. Judges don’t work for him and he can’t fire them for the most part.
If the President or an executive agency is party to a case, they can file a motion requesting expedited review, and present their argument for why this should be granted, according to the relevant rules of procedure. But the decision to grant that privilege is largely at the discretion of the courts themselves.
If there were a compelling national security interest in deciding the case quickly, they could present evidence of that, but the relevant trial and/or appellate judges may not find it convincing.
Thank you, that’s exactly what I wanted to know. Can ordinary members of the public file such a motion and present arguments as to why it should be granted or does this only apply to the President or an executive agency?
Anyone can ask. But without some compelling reason, it’s not likely to be granted. Many states, for example, allow for expedited hearings/trials in cases where one party is very old, or very sick, for obvious reasons.
Executions usually end up with emergency appeals for a stay, which are acted on (either accepted or denied) immediately.
Surely that should be “anyone who is a party to the proceedings can ask”?
What’s with the “for the most part” bit? The prez cannot fire a judge at all. What he can do is agitate for impeachment. Even in that case, it’s still up to Congress to can the judge.
Also, can the prez or his attorney general go directly to the Supreme Court for an opinion/decision or to get a case heard? Or do they have to work their way through several appeal layers? Or is that privilege lost once a case starts in regular court?
Don’t you have to have standing to file such a motion? That is, don’t have you be one of the parties to the case?
The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in a narrow field of cases: primarily those where there are disputes between individual states. For everything else, you have to begin with the courts of general jurisdiction (the District Courts in the federal system) and then proceed with appellate review if necessary (US Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court).
FWIW, when the federal government does argue an appeal in the SC, it is traditionally the Solicitor General, not the AG, who presents the case.
I’m gonna think that if a judge begins conducting proceedings in the nude, and no court official can touch him or her because it’s ‘his court, and he has sole control’, they are not going to hang about for Congress.
They can’t fire him, regardless. The presiding judge can remove him from the courtroom, but he’s still a judge and still draws his salary, even naked.
Depends on the gender :eek:
As an example, though he wasn’t naked (at least in court) former judge Walter Nixon famously continued to draw his judicial salary while in prison, until Congress got around to firing him the next year.
What goes on under the robes, stays under the robes. Thank God.