Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,722,751 times
Reputation: 3146

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Um no the supreme court gets 7,000 cases each year many of which present novel and compelling issues and 1/3 of which have gone all the way to state supreme courts, which apparently thought they had compelling issues and were not settled law. Out of those 7,000 they hear about 80. The court simply doesn't have the time to adjudicate 7,000 cases a year.

Let me ask you do you enjoy being wrong?
No, the court turns away cases because they are not compelling. Because a case makes it to a state supreme court in no way indicates it presents a unique or compelling constitutional question to the SCOTUS.

Let me help you out sparky.

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html

"Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, but only issues a writ in a fraction of cases. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the lower court is final.

The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme Court is through an appeal from a state supreme court. Each state has its own supreme court that is the final authority on state law. (However, each state does not always call its highest court the "Supreme Court"; in New York, for example, the highest court is the Court of Appeals.) The Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,722,751 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
They have historically. Do you deny that?

Even a former Supreme Court Justice admitted that the SCOTUS sold out the US Constitution to preserve the court under FDR's threats to stack the Supreme Court. Seriously, please educate yourself!
By definition the supreme court acts constitutionally because it is the arbiter of what is constitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:45 PM
 
990 posts, read 2,297,734 times
Reputation: 1149
The original video is stupid. Sorry, but its simply not analogous. Don't see how this thread went further than a couple of posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:47 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,372,729 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
No, the court turns away cases because they are not compelling. Because a case makes it to a state supreme court in no way indicates it presents a unique or compelling constitutional question to the SCOTUS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Let me help you out sparky.

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html

"Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, but only issues a writ in a fraction of cases. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the lower court is final.

The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme Court is through an appeal from a state supreme court. Each state has its own supreme court that is the final authority on state law. (However, each state does not always call its highest court the "Supreme Court"; in New York, for example, the highest court is the Court of Appeals.) The Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues."
Lmao you think that only 80 cases out of 7,000, many of which have made their way through state supreme courts and circuit courts are compelling? The answer is of course they are compelling, but the Supreme Court only has time for a select few that are more compelling.

Once more appeallate lawyers are not stupid people. They know that the SCOTUS cannot make decisions regarding state law, as such they have constitutional grounds for bringing a case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:50 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,722,751 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Lmao you think that only 80 cases out of 7,000, many of which have made their way through state supreme courts and circuit courts are compelling? The answer is of course they are compelling, but the Supreme Court only has time for a select few that are more compelling.
See above. You are of course, wrong, once again. The SCOTUS itself is telling you how they select cases and you tell them they are wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Another unpersuasive argument. Simply thinking you candidate is inadequate doest make one any less of a critical thinker or any less interested in liberty.
Another twisted response. When it is proven you have no problem with government taking away freedoms and liberty through actions, the rhetoric of "know they don't" means little.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:52 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,372,729 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
See above. You are of course, wrong, once again. The SCOTUS itself is telling you how they select cases and you tell them they are wrong.
Not once did they say they don't accept cases because they are not compelling, which is your argument. They base it on relative importance and need for a final resolution. That doesn't mean the cases they opt not to take are not compelling or important. It just means they are not as important as the cases they do take because there is a limit to the number of cases you can hear and decide in a set amount of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,890 posts, read 18,722,751 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Another twisted response. When it is proven you have no problem with government taking away freedoms and liberty through actions, the rhetoric of "know they don't" means little.
Speaking of twisted. Please point out where it is "proven I have no problem with government taking away freedoms and liberty through action"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
As I have repeatedly said I trust the governmennt to act constitutionally, and they always do. You seem to believe you are the arbiter of all that is constitutional, your not. Because a politician does something you view as unconstitutional it doesn't make it so. It certainly doesn't make their actions intentionally unconstitutional. We have a supreme court to sort out these issues.
always do? LMAO
Prohibition ring a bell? Did you trust them when they passed prohibition or when they repealed it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,937 posts, read 17,805,641 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
And again, that is why we have a supreme court. And of course the SCOTUS decides what is constitutional, so the government always act constitutionally.
Do some research on why the Supreme Court was setup to be the least powerful branch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top