Supreme Court rejects former President Donald Trump’s request to intervene in Mar-a-Lago documents fight

[Scott]

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected an emergency request from former President Donald Trump to intervene in the dispute over classified documents seized from his Mar-a-Lago estate in August.

Trump had asked the justices to reverse a federal appeals court and allow a special master to review about 100 documents marked classified, a move that could have opened the door for his legal team to review the records and argue that they should be off limits to prosecutors in a criminal case.

But in a brief order, the court denied the request. There were no noted dissents.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/13/politics/supreme-court-trump-mar-a-lago/index.html

[candide]

Unanimous decision. Even the judges he nominated consider Trump as an embarrassment.

[Jerno]

At least this time the Republican Justices made genuine thoughtful and unbiased proper decision.  Need a couple dozen more soon from the Supreme  Court regarding Trump.

[Chomper Higgot]

Trump was obviously laboring under the misunderstanding that the extreme rightwing Christian ideologues he was being fed to appoint to the USSC were to be put there for his benefit.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, candide said:

Unanimous decision. Even the judges he nominated consider Trump as an embarrassment.

 

I don't think we know whether it was a unanimous decision or not... The fact that there were no cited dissents to the ruling doesn't necessarily mean all of the justices supported it.

 

It was a one-sentence unsigned order that didn't name what justices may have supported it or what ones may have opposed it.

 

All we know for certain, AFAICT, is that at least a majority did support the decision, and Trump loses again before a Supreme Court where 3 of the 9 current justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett) are his appointees.

Edited October 14, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[candide]

37 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I don't think we know whether it was a unanimous decision or not... The fact that there were no cited dissents to the ruling doesn't necessarily mean all of the justices supported it.

 

It was a one-sentence unsigned order that didn't name what justices may have supported it or what ones may have opposed it.

 

All we know for certain, AFAICT, is that at least a majority did support the decision, and Trump loses again before a Supreme Court where 3 of the 9 current justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett) are his appointees.

"No dissents noted" means there may have been disagreements, but they have not been noted? I didn't know that.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, candide said:

"No dissents noted" means there may have been disagreements, but they have not been noted? I didn't know that.

I think what it means is...for whatever reasons, none of them chose to make an official public dissent to the ruling.

 

I don't think we can necessarily presume that automatically means all 9 of them were in full agreement behind the scenes.  It could mean that, but doesn't automatically mean that, as I understand it.

 

By doing it as an unsigned order, the public isn't given any info on just what any of the individual justices might have thought on the subject.

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Confirming my explanation above:

 

Invisible majorities: Counting to nine votes in per curiam cases

...

"But not all opinions are signed. The court sometimes issues unsigned per curiam decisions – so named after the Latin phrase meaning “by the court.” In such cases, the justices’ positions are not always so clear.

 

All we know for sure is that at least five members – a majority of the court – agreed with the unsigned order. Individual justices can, and do, write separately to express their concurrence with, or dissent from, a per curiam ruling. But the failure to write separately does not necessarily indicate assent.

 

As a result, it is often impossible in these cases to figure out which justices were in the majority, and which were in the dissent."

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/invisible-majorities-counting-to-nine-votes-in-per-curiam-cases/