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
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Question for DU legal eagles-- (Original Post) lastlib Nov 2020 OP
yes but trumpy could take it to SCOTUS gopiscrap Nov 2020 #1
In theory, yes. In reality, no. onenote Nov 2020 #2
The Trump Administration edhopper Nov 2020 #3
Not really. Ms. Toad Nov 2020 #4
Not exactly. Laelth Nov 2020 #5
The Presidential Transition Act specifically says... PoliticAverse Nov 2020 #6

gopiscrap

(23,757 posts)
1. yes but trumpy could take it to SCOTUS
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 03:04 PM
Nov 2020

and they would probably delay hearing it so it wouldn't be enforceable until after the inauguration which would make it moot. they would do this so they could reward him, but pass the buck on actually making a decision. By issuing a stay of the lower court it would in effect do trumps bidding for him anyway with out the blow back by making an unpopular decision

onenote

(42,700 posts)
2. In theory, yes. In reality, no.
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 03:14 PM
Nov 2020

Does a court have the power to issue a writ of mandamus to make someone perform an action they are legally obligated to perform? Yes. But because the Transition Act vests discretion in the GSA Administrator as to when and how to ascertain whether a candidate is the "apparent" successful candidate for president, it is unlikely that a court would issue the extraordinary writ of mandamus in that situation.



edhopper

(33,573 posts)
3. The Trump Administration
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 03:17 PM
Nov 2020

hs refused to comply with every Court ruling against them.
There is no enforcement authority, so not worth the paper.

Ms. Toad

(34,066 posts)
4. Not really.
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 03:18 PM
Nov 2020

Pretty much the same as has already been said.

The basic problem is the rule is too fuzzy. You have to have a right to what you are asking to be mandated. That means it has to be pretty well defined (this is not), and the evidence has to establish it as met the criteria (pretty hard to meet fuzzy criteria), not subject to discretion (this is),

Laelth

(32,017 posts)
5. Not exactly.
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 03:21 PM
Nov 2020

Emily Murphy doesn’t have the power (in her official duties) to “find” that Biden is President-Elect. Only the Electoral College has that power. The Court won’t order Emily Murphy to do something that she lacks the power to do.

Now, if the Court wanted to stick its neck out, the Court, itself, could “find” that Biden is President-Elect, and then it could order Murphy to release transition funds. Releasing said funds IS within her power and is one of her official duties, but the Court is unlikely to do this because it’s clearly the purview of the Electoral College, and not the Court, to declare our President-Elect.

-Laelth

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
6. The Presidential Transition Act specifically says...
Mon Nov 16, 2020, 04:10 PM
Nov 2020

that the President-elect is "as ascertained by the Administrator" so she is given the power to determine that.

“(c) The terms ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Question for DU legal eag...