Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(8,049 posts)

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

Tue May 12, 2020, 02:27 PM

May 2020

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If I were arguing the case before the supreme court, I would have asked this question. [View all] shockey80 May 2020 OP

Not sure to what you're referring, but elleng May 2020 #1

The SCOTUS is required to hear only a handful of types of cases. Laelth May 2020 #6

Because They Want To Overturn That Precedent sfstaxprep May 2020 #2

I agree. Laelth May 2020 #4

If it is "settled law", cite the Supreme Court case. n/t PoliticAverse May 2020 #5

Jones v. Clinton Laelth May 2020 #7

U.S. vs. Nixon....ordered Nixon to turn over 'his' tapes. spanone May 2020 #11

That case concerned "executive privledge". PoliticAverse May 2020 #13

I don't think you understand the concept of settled law. onenote May 2020 #8

Nothing is settled law, as to the supreme court. Ms. Toad May 2020 #9

True. n/t Laelth May 2020 #10