HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If I were arguing the cas...

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:49 PM

 

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

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.

13 replies, 871 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply If I were arguing the case before the supreme court, I would have asked this question. (Original post)
shockey80 May 2020 OP
elleng May 2020 #1
uponit7771 May 2020 #3
Laelth May 2020 #6
sfstaxprep May 2020 #2
Laelth May 2020 #4
PoliticAverse May 2020 #5
Laelth May 2020 #7
spanone May 2020 #11
PoliticAverse May 2020 #13
onenote May 2020 #8
Ms. Toad May 2020 #9
Laelth May 2020 #10
BComplex May 2020 #12

Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:54 PM

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

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:57 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #3)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:01 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:56 PM

2. Because They Want To Overturn That Precedent

At least when it involves a repub "president."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 12:58 PM

4. I agree.

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

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

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:01 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #5)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:03 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #5)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:13 PM

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #11)

Tue May 12, 2020, 03:12 PM

13. That case concerned "executive privledge".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:05 PM

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

Which cases settled the exact questions presented in these cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:09 PM

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #9)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:10 PM

10. True. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shockey80 (Original post)

Tue May 12, 2020, 01:27 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread