@the_scrivener @chrisgeidner my understanding is that courtesy remains in effect. If not that would be major news.
-
-
Replying to @davidminpdx
@davidminbklyn
@the_scrivener He does not say it was abandoned; he said it wasn't used in this instance. Not knowing the specifics ...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@the_scrivener one way liberals could make it clear would be to vote for cert. then we'd know if courtesy was still in place2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidminpdx
@davidminbklyn
@the_scrivener Right, but, as you note, they'd likely only do so in a case where they think Kennedy is gettable.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner@the_scrivener do you know mechanics of cert voting? Secret ballot? Go around the table in order?4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @davidminpdx
@davidminbklyn
@chrisgeidner also - the Medellin cite is 129 SCT 360, where Breyer expresses disappointment in no 5th courtesy vote1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_scrivener
@the_scrivener @davidminbklyn I don't think there was any cert petition in the filing. As with the app that garnered 4 dissents last night.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner @davidminbklyn there was - it notes stay denied and then petition denied. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14a269.htm …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @the_scrivener
@the_scrivener Nope. It was 14A266 in which four justices dissented. @davidminbklyn2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisgeidner
@chrisgeidner @davidminbklyn see my last post - cert denied 9/9/141 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@the_scrivener @davidminbklyn That is for 14-6168 & 14A265, to which no justice dissented.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.