Gorsuch and 9th Circuit Decison

In My Humble Opinion
1

Gorsuch said what he said, in spite of Trump’s denial (its more than a little ironic that Trump is calling someone on their credibility. Jeez.) Some Dems are saying its just a ploy to feign judicial neutrality. To those of you who are familiar with Gorsuch and have read the 9th’s decision - if Trump somehow manages to delay a USSC hearing until after Gorsuch is confirmed, what is is likelihood Gorsuch would vote to reverse it? How about any of the other justices?

P.S. - In the hypothetical case that the case is delayed, reversed and the vote is along party lines, I wonder, will the Donald will continue to say the judiciary is all politics? No need to answer that one.

2

No particular idea on Gorsuch but I heard some of the talking heads on television discussing that a 4-4 split is not a certainty with the current makeup of the court. There are some relevant case history that would seem to favor the administration, enough so that Kagan was considered a likely cross over to give a 5-3 win to the administration.

We tend to think of the court as sharply divided but the 5-4 narrowly split votes are much less common than a 9-0 or 8-1 blowouts. And that included some unanimous rebukes where justices voted against a position held by the president who nominated him/her to the court.
There is a possibility that the administration could play for time, asking for an en banc review by the full 9th circuit. This might allow enough time for Gorsuch to be confirmed. And/or the Senate might be prompted to more quickly pull the trigger on the nuclear option to hurry along the Gorsuch nomination and get him on the court in time to hear the case.

3

Problem with that is that the whole EO was supposed to be for 90 days, by which time an “extreme vetting” program was supposed to be in effect. So the longer it drags out, the more pointless it becomes.

4

One of the other points made by the talking heads last night was that the Supreme Court does not like taking appeals in interim orders, such as a TRO.

Some thought that even if it goes to the Court, it might get dismissed solely on the standing issue, with no discussion of the merits.

5

I think that would be an issue of ripeness, not standing.

6

No, two separate points:

  1. Does Washington state even have standing to come to court on these issues?

  2. Should the Supreme Court deal with the TRO, which is such a preliminary matter, rather than wait until after there’s been a full trial on the issue?

7

Gorsuch might recuse, no?

8

I don’t really see a basis for recusal, as Gorsuch was not involved in the EO implementation or litigation in any way.

9

Section III (pages 8 - 13) adresses standing. My layman’s reading is that Washington and Minnsota as operators of state universities, have an interest of faculty, staff, and students of those univerities.

[QUOTE = 9th circuit]
We therefore hold that the States have standing
[/QUOTE]

Brian

10

The Court has addressed cases before where the nature at issue had some sort of timeline that would normally circumvent full review due to the slower pace of the courts. So long as the matter was capable of coming up again they might not dismiss for mootness.

This was a crucial issue in Roe v Wade. By the time a matter such as the right to terminate a pregnancy could wind its way through the courts and get to the high court the pregnancy at issue would be long since over even absent an abortion. The court deemed this to be an inadequate reason to dismiss the case.