Latest Breaking News

Did you read the article? It's from June and it is about the decision on the application for a partial stay and was focused on the issue of whether a nationwide injunction was appropriate. The "fiery" dissent was on that issue. It wasn't on whether a petition for cert should be granted on the underlying question of the constitutionality of the executive order because, well, no such petition had been filed, something all of the justices acknowledged. Indeed, the upshot of the partial stay decision was that the injunction against the executive order remained in effect, but only with respect to the named plaintiffs in the lower court case, not nationwide. And, in fact, when the cases went back to the lower courts, they ended up being transformed into class actions and the executive order has been and remains effectively enjoined a nationwide basis.

The Court couldn't have already granted cert because no petition for cert was filed until September -- months after the Court's ruling on the partial stay -- and was only considered this week. Those are facts. Period.

It also is a fact, which I noted in my post, which I suggest that you re-read -- that the three liberal justices made clear that they believe the executive order is unconstitutional. I have no doubt that they still are of that view and I think they are correct. But is a a fact --again an undeniable fact -- that when the case was presented to them with a petition for certiorari on the question of the constitutionality of the order, they did not note their dissent to the granting of that petition. Why? I don't know. I'm sure its not because they have doubts about the constitutionality. Indeed, it is hardly unknown for the Court to affirm lower court decisions unanimously even when they've granted cert.

So, once again, the notion that they already had granted cert is simply, unequivocally wrong. They had no opportunity to do so until a petition was filed and that didn't happen until months after the separate, narrow ruling on the partial stay and the issue of nationwide injunctions.

I've read these decisions, and the dissents. I recommend you do the same.