Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: simpson96
No explanation from a SC Justice is very telling. If any Judge should give an explanation for a decision, it’s a SC Justice.

This was not a Supreme Court "decision." The Supreme Court has not decided to hear the case; they haven't even been asked to hear it. Instead, the plaintiffs asked Barrett (the Justice who hears motions from the 7th Circuit) to issue an injunction against Indiana University's policy while the plaintiffs prepare papers asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. Such motions are almost never granted, because (a) it's not clear if the Court will ever hear the case, and (b) it's likewise not clear that the plaintiffs would win even if the Court took the case.

So motions like this are very rarely granted, and the denials are usually without any explanation.

The denial of a motion like this sets no precedent; the plaintiffs can still ask the Supreme Court to take up the case. All that Barrett decided was to leave the status quo in place while the normal process goes forward.

169 posted on 08/13/2021 1:51:45 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Lurking Libertarian
All that Barrett decided was to leave the status quo in place while the normal process goes forward.

Someday if you are being dragged off to a concentration camp because a Supreme Court Justice decided to "leave the status quo in place" remember your words today.
178 posted on 11/18/2021 8:48:44 PM PST by cgbg (A kleptocracy--if they can keep it. Think of it as the Cantillon Effect in action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson