Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Steve, I'm not at all convinced that Justice Ginsburg can gather another five Justices to decide to hear the case. The question on the table then might be: by refusing to even hear the case, will SCOTUS have done all that it should to defend the Constitution and our rule of law?
SCOTUS can't (and doesn't) choose to hear every case that is appealed to them. They aren't often criticized for failing to exercise their Constitutional responsibilities in the cases they decline to hear--why would they be in this one? Just because it's high profile?
|
In situations not involving conflicts between the states, SCOTUS normally only takes cases where there is conflict between/among Circuit Courts of Appeal on similar cases, or there is no SCOTUS-level precedent case on the matter where the issue is unique.
If SCOTUS does not take this case, it effectively affirms the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal decision, and from then on, that 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal case is "good law." That basically means, the arguments in the affirmed briefs become guidance for similar subsequent actions. If SCOTUS does not take the case, the justices (no9t all) have to be satisfied that the 2nd Circuit COA's ruling (or any reliance on lower court ruling) was indeed rational under the law. So, the question is really, is SCOTUS satisfied that the ruling in this case acceptable for future cases of similar fact pattern?
BTW - Only 4 justices must agree for a case like this to be heard by the Court. That gets decided behind closed doors.