Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

unblock

(52,209 posts)

16. there's nothing "colluding" or "interfering" with the someone at the supreme court

Reply to longship (Reply #15)

Fri Jun 15, 2012, 09:55 PM

Jun 2012

giving the white house a heads up.

in fact i would be rather surprised if that never happened. i have to think that at some point, the court felt it was its duty to give the president some advance notice. after all, court decisions can have profound effects on the body of law.

yes, it's conceivable that the president could commit impeachable offenses that involve manipulating court decisions, but that's a far cry from what we've been talking about in this thread.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

White House probably knows outcome of health care case before Supreme Court. [View all] michaelcobb Jun 2012 OP

No one knows dsc Jun 2012 #1

Separation of Powers? longship Jun 2012 #2

Would a heads up be impeachable? SoutherDem Jun 2012 #7

How would they ever prove it? michaelcobb Jun 2012 #8

how on earth would that be even remotely considered an impeachable offense? unblock Jun 2012 #10

Collusion, or interference would be impeachable longship Jun 2012 #15

there's nothing "colluding" or "interfering" with the someone at the supreme court unblock Jun 2012 #16

The "heads up" never, ever happens. longship Jun 2012 #17

people don't understand this because you're making it up. unblock Jun 2012 #18

The tradition is because of the separation of powers longship Jun 2012 #20

a heads up from the court is to the saturday night massacre as a tap on the shoulder is to murder unblock Jun 2012 #22

Fine. Cite an example. longship Jun 2012 #26

we're getting way off topic, but here are some examples: unblock Jun 2012 #34

I agree longship Jun 2012 #35

How is advanced notice of a decision an abuse of power? Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #24

First, SCOTUS doesn't leak. longship Jun 2012 #27

That you know of. Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #30

I am glad you agree that there's no evidence for leak claims longship Jun 2012 #31

Conspiracies? Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #32

Madam Speaker seems pretty confident.n/t monmouth Jun 2012 #3

I am not even trying to forecast SoutherDem Jun 2012 #4

How does it "sound to" you? FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #5

Love it. Being Republican means never being wrong. michaelcobb Jun 2012 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author unblock Jun 2012 #9

The W.H. can probably guess, like we can. The ct is 5-4 conservative. It has voted Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #11

I would disagree about that. kenny blankenship Jun 2012 #25

+a billion magical thyme Jun 2012 #28

You're being too logical. Conservatives are against the mandate... Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #33

Thanks MIRT! And I didn't even alert: freshwest Jun 2012 #12

I see that you have not survived the powers of MIRT. MineralMan Jun 2012 #13

Anthony Kennedy is not just a conservative but an arch-conservative TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #14

The mandate isn't the only means to fund the other provisions Shrek Jun 2012 #19

probably? that's your assertion? spanone Jun 2012 #21

My hope is that the mandate was the contentious part GarroHorus Jun 2012 #23

Are you talking about the Supreme Court who selected Bush as President? lunatica Jun 2012 #29