If I were arguing the case before the supreme court, I would have asked this question.

[shockey80]

Why is the supreme court taking up a case that is already settled law? This case should have made it to the supreme court. Taking up this case demeans the court.

[elleng]

1. Not sure to what you're referring, but

'settled law' has to be APPLIED to subsequent cases.

[uponit7771]

3. My understanding is the supreme Court doesn't take every case that has already been settled before

... it multiple times

For instance if not going to settle the case of everyone being equal 15 times or a year

[Laelth]

6. The SCOTUS is required to hear only a handful of types of cases.

This is not one that the SCOTUS was required to hear. The Court, for whatever reason, chose to hear it anyway.

-Laelth

[sfstaxprep]

2. Because They Want To Overturn That Precedent

At least when it involves a repub "president."

[Laelth]

4. I agree.

The Court should have allowed the earlier, Appeals Court rulings to stand.

But once the SCOTUS is in session, it’s pointless to ask why the SCOTUS decided to hear the case. The question is moot at that point.

-Laelth

[PoliticAverse]

5. If it is "settled law", cite the Supreme Court case. n/t

[Laelth]

7. Jones v. Clinton

That case held that a sitting President could be subpoenaed, forced to give a deposition, and forced to defend himself in a civil suit while acting as President.

-Laelth

[spanone]

11. U.S. vs. Nixon....ordered Nixon to turn over 'his' tapes.

[PoliticAverse]

13. That case concerned "executive privledge".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

This case does not:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-635#!

[onenote]

8. I don't think you understand the concept of settled law.

Which cases settled the exact questions presented in these cases

[Ms. Toad]

9. Nothing is settled law, as to the supreme court.

While they generally apply stare decisis, part of the point of having a single supreme court is that the right to recognize new interpretations/understandings of the law (binding on all LOWER courts belongs to them).

After all, racial segregation was settled law at one time. So was locking Japanese Americans in internment camps. Did the court demean itself by taking up Brown v. Board of Education?

[Laelth]

10. True. n/t

-Laelth

[BComplex]

12. I think you mean the case SHOULDN'T have made it to the supreme court. You said should.

The court should have let the lower court's decision stand. It SHOULDN'T have taken the case.