I copied from an earlier post. I couldn't find the dates either until someone shared these links. I just wonder how anyone can honestly say they know who won the election when there are this many pending cases still. I also thought it was illegal to certify an election when there are pending fraud cases, but that didn't stop anyone on the 6th.
I like how as peasants we can get taken to court for stupid shit and there’s not much we can do about it, but the Supreme Court can be like “nah, this isn’t worth hearing” for the most major of complaints and the whole issue just vanished into the nether.
It says on the site that the SC will be close to the public during this time, so all conferences will be held remotely. I'd imagine they'll do a zoom call and hopefully present evidence that way.
"Conference" is when the Supreme Court both discusses cases already heard and (as in these cases) discusses pending petitions for certiorari. So yes: It's not the hearing or the trial; it's when the Court discusses whether they want to hear the cases at all.
They will likely deny cert in the Powell and Wood suits on the same standing grounds that have blocked them in the lower courts. They may ultimately take up the Trump cases, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about the odds of any dramatic results.
They rejected a motion to expedite the petition, which is a pretty strong signal that, based on what they've seen so far at least, most of them don't think there's a realistic chance the cases would alter the outcome of the election. IF they opt to hear some of the cases, which I wouldn't take for granted, we may see them ruling that certain state procedural changes were improper and then remand to the lower courts for more detailed orders binding future elections. But I don't think it's realistic to imagine they're going to toss votes post-certification or call a mulligan on the whole election after very purposefully delaying the hearings until after inauguration.
Upcoming SCOTUS cases:
2/19 Conference
MI- https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-815.html (Powell)
GA- https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-799.html (Wood)
PA- https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-845.html (Trump)
WI- https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-882.html (Trump)
2/26 Conference
WI - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-859.html (Powell)
AZ- https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-858.html (Powell)
Thank you!
I copied from an earlier post. I couldn't find the dates either until someone shared these links. I just wonder how anyone can honestly say they know who won the election when there are this many pending cases still. I also thought it was illegal to certify an election when there are pending fraud cases, but that didn't stop anyone on the 6th.
You're correct, this is to decide if they will hear it or not.
But you are correct. The conference is simply to decide whether to hear the case or not.
I like how as peasants we can get taken to court for stupid shit and there’s not much we can do about it, but the Supreme Court can be like “nah, this isn’t worth hearing” for the most major of complaints and the whole issue just vanished into the nether.
The cases are up at/for conference. I don’t know exactly what that means but perhaps it’s not a hearing or the trial but some other procedure?
It says on the site that the SC will be close to the public during this time, so all conferences will be held remotely. I'd imagine they'll do a zoom call and hopefully present evidence that way.
"Conference" is when the Supreme Court both discusses cases already heard and (as in these cases) discusses pending petitions for certiorari. So yes: It's not the hearing or the trial; it's when the Court discusses whether they want to hear the cases at all.
They will likely deny cert in the Powell and Wood suits on the same standing grounds that have blocked them in the lower courts. They may ultimately take up the Trump cases, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about the odds of any dramatic results.
They rejected a motion to expedite the petition, which is a pretty strong signal that, based on what they've seen so far at least, most of them don't think there's a realistic chance the cases would alter the outcome of the election. IF they opt to hear some of the cases, which I wouldn't take for granted, we may see them ruling that certain state procedural changes were improper and then remand to the lower courts for more detailed orders binding future elections. But I don't think it's realistic to imagine they're going to toss votes post-certification or call a mulligan on the whole election after very purposefully delaying the hearings until after inauguration.
Is it required for them to list it publically? Can they do it behind the scenes without telling anyone?
Yes they can do anything.