Posted on 12/28/2014 2:25:14 PM PST by NoLibZone
Does the administration have any role in which cases are argued in the Supreme Court?
Do they have to take one side?
Or can the simply pass on the case?
What are the terms used for passing a case, or agreeing with one side?
Thank you!
If four of the justices want to take up the case, it’s taken up. The administration has no say in it.
I suppose they can put up a weak case if they don't believe the law in question is worthy of a strong effort but with Obola nothing is as it should be.
Certainly not — the parties at issue argue the case.
Unless the Government IS one of the parties, that is — such as when implementation of a law or rule is involved.
When the government gets involved with a case it is called filing an “amicus curie” (sp?) or “friend of the court” briefing which lays out how the case might be viewed — these are NOT BINDING.
I know of no term for when such a briefing is not filed. I think for this administration it is “holderusdormir” since they seem to think they are litigants in EVERY case.
No, the Supreme Court decides which cases they will hear and which they will not.
Do they have to take one side?
Or can the simply pass on the case?
What are the terms used for passing a case, or agreeing with one side?
Depends on whether the United States is the plaintiff or the defendant. Not all cases that are argued before the Supreme Court involve the federal government. If the U.S. is not involved then the administration has no side.
The department of justice is supposed to be on the side of the constitution. Unfortunately after all these years of political appointments they’ve become the president’s private weapon.
If the United States (or an agency) is a party, then they appear and argue as any other party. If the US is not a party, then either the government can request “amicus” status to appear and take a position on the legal issues presented - or the Supreme Court can ask the government for its position on the issues.
they have a right to file an amicus brief in any case...under holder they act like they have NSA files on all judges
>>they have a right to file an amicus brief in any case...under holder they act like they have NSA files on all judges<<
Yes — but not a duty. And I agree that holder acts like his briefs don’t ride up...
I believe this is correct. Also I believe the Solicitor General, not the DoJ, argues the government’s case.
SCOTUS decides what cases they’re going to take (though who knows what arm-twisting goes on behind the scenes). The administration usually does NOT argue in cases because they’re usually not one of the parties. They often are, however, and those they do show up to argue, such as whatever the Osamacare mandate case was called.
Interested, but not directly involved parties may file amicus (”friend of the court”) briefs arguing for one or other finding, and administrations sometimes do that as well.
>>Also I believe the Solicitor General, not the DoJ, argues the government’s case.<<
Good point — but we know holder is the one doing the writing.
>>SCOTUS decides what cases they’re going to take (though who knows what arm-twisting goes on behind the scenes).<<
This is called “granting certiorari.” The SCOTUS can choose NOT to do so silently or state why as they deem fit.
There is also the scenario where a government agency and a non-governmental special interest entity actually have the same political agenda on a given topic (think EPA and Sierra Club), but for the agency to take the action they both desire would exceed their statutory authority or be politically unpopular, so they arrange for the other entity to sue them to enact whatever freedom stealing fascist tyranny they’re both drooling over, then do a bad job defending the case, losing intentionally, and the court finds in favor of the outside party and orders them to do to you what they wanted to do in the first place. Everybody wins, except the only people who count.
LOL!
Not a Constitutional scholar and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but it would seem that being part of the Executive branch, the DOJ is charged with executing or carrying out the laws that have been duly passed.
____________________________________
The entire executive branch, including the president, swear to ‘faithfully execute’ all laws. Of course, the Constitution, statutes, oaths, etc., mean nothing to lawless, renegade communists.
Well, even though it was the law of the land, the OBAMA REGIME decided to NOT defend in court The Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court then decided it was unconstitutional.
PFL
But then, when you are allowed to usurp power assigned to the Legislative branch, what's to stop you from usurping the power assigned to the Judicial?
As others have pointed out, the argument for the Government is usually made by the Solicitor General or his staff, but the Solicitor General's office is part of the DOJ. Occasionally, the Attorney General himself will argue a case instead of the Solicitor General.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.