To: jiggyboy
Here's the dirty little secret. Tens of thousands of cases "make it" to The Supreme Court every year. Staffers dismiss 99.9% of them out of hand. The Supremes themselves have no say in which cases they hear. With a possible few exceptions.
So, my question is, how and why the hell did this case make it to the docket?
23 posted on
05/14/2017 8:12:53 AM PDT by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: Texas Eagle
how and why . . . did this case make it to the docket? Quite likely, the headline of the article is the answer. If you were wanting to appeal a ruling to SCOTUS wouldn’t you like to be able to cite, in furtherance of your appeal, the fact that there is a sitting member of SCOTUS who agreed with your argument as a lower-court judge? In the absurd hypothetical case where all sitting justices were on record as dissenting from a lower-court ruling on a case, I don’t think anyone would be questioning why it was accepted on appeal.
It doesn’t hurt that Gorsuch is expected to frequently be in the majority.
30 posted on
05/14/2017 10:25:59 AM PDT by
conservatism_IS_compassion
(The idea around which ‘liberalism’ coheres is that NOTHING ACTUALLY MATTERS except PR.)
To: Texas Eagle
The Supremes themselves have no say in which cases they hear. With a possible few exceptions.
Apparently Gorsuch has decided to review all cases personally.
35 posted on
05/14/2017 1:43:48 PM PDT by
chaosagent
(Remember, no matter how you slice it, forbidden fruit still tastes the sweetest!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson