Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nickcarraway

Hey, Neil, what took you so long?

SCOTUS had opportunities to intercede in the tyranny but they chose to weenie out of it.


9 posted on 05/30/2023 5:59:55 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam (Joe Biden is to elections as Lance Armstrong is to cycling.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: MayflowerMadam
SCOTUS had very few legitimate opportunities to intercede in the Branch Covidian nonsense. Their only recourse would have been to issue emergency rulings in cases that were given fast-track appeals, and those opportunities were few and far between.

SCOTUS rarely intercedes in this manner because it is rare for an issue to be the subject of a legal challenge where a SCOTUS ruling is required to stop immediate and irreparable harm. In almost every case that is subject to important constitutional scrutiny, there is no harm in letting the case proceed through the normal appeal process — which can take several years.

I would point out, though, that it is likely the Supreme Court will be involved in the next few years quite a few cases involving civil rights violations by state and local governments — and many employers, too.

17 posted on 05/30/2023 7:18:42 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("I've just pissed in my pants and nobody can do anything about it." -- Major Fambrough)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson