The Supreme Court Does Not Need Friends Like This

American Thinker.com ^ | April 20, 2022 | Jay Tucker

[Kaslin]

Our judicial system was created to determine factual truth and to determine whether our laws have been violated and are just.

To that end, witnesses at a trial give sworn testimony on penalty of perjury and are subject to cross-examination and rebuttal.

After the trial, one or more of the parties may decide to appeal the trial court decision. To preserve the trial court protections of sworn testimony, cross-examination, and rebuttal, appeals courts operate under a general rule: Appellate court review is limited to the trial court record of the evidence submitted.

Shamefully, the general rule is not being followed. Enter the culprit – the Friend of the Court (aka the amicus curiae).

An amicus curiae is a person or organization (not a party to the lawsuit) with special interest, strong views, or supposed special expertise as to the issues in the case who submits an amicus brief to the appellate court. The usual amici are special interest groups, lawyers and law professors, government, business/trade groups, and non-profit organizations who purport to have special information or experience that would be beneficial to the court.

[AndyJackson]

Uh, wrong.