If and when this reaches the Supremes, again (after losing last time, there) Trump will need to show that his right to stop the subpoena, and thus his view of the applicable law is "indisputably clear". See below; it is, but not in the way Trump imagines: it is now indisputably clear that he. is. wrong. on. the. law. Hilarious. [Prior background, here.]
Here is the full brief as a PDF, and a bit:
. . . .Appellant should not be allowed to recast his application as a request for a stay. Appellant has indicated that if this Court denies his current application, he intends to seek similar relief from the Supreme Court, Dist. Ct. Dkt. 74, at 1 n.*, where “a significantly higher justification” is required for an injunction pending appeal than for a stay pending appeal. Respect Maine PAC v. McKee, 562 U.S. 996, 996 (2010) (quoting Ohio Citizens, 479 U.S. at 1313). To obtain such an injunction, an applicant must demonstrate that the legal rights at issue are “indisputably clear.” Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 568 U.S. 1401, 1403 (2012) (quoting Wis. Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, 542 U.S. 1305, 1306 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., in chambers)) (Sotomayor, J., in chambers); accord Lux v. Rodrigues, 561 U.S. 1306, 1307 (2010) (Roberts, C.J., in chambers). While Appellant cannot show grounds for relief from this Court under any standard, as detailed below, he should not be permitted to evade a demanding standard of review by mislabeling his request for injunctive relief as a request for a stay. . . .
As I say -- trying to be "too clever, by half, often leads to. . . losing. . . ALL." That is so here -- but the American people will win: they will see the rule of law prevail over a. . . dictator. Smiling, now. . . as I look toward Arizona, and a painted sunset on the baby-girl's saguaro cacti. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment