FWIS3

Tarragon wrote:

vendic wrote:Geonuc, it's no big deal. This turned out to require way more time investment that I was willing to give it anyway.
I'll just stay confused. it's my natural state anyway. lol

Which part is confusing? Is it a ruling that might both limit the government latitude and yet rule against the Plaintiffs?

The combinations require are:
Rule against the gov and against the plaintiff
Rule against the gov and for the plaintiff (no conflict, ruling on plaintiff and precedent are in agreement)
Rule for the gov and against the plaintiff (no conflict, ruling on plaintiff and precedent are in agreement)
Rule for the gov and for the plaintiff

I just don't understand how the other two possibilities are handled.

The court can't rule for or against both parties. Even if they dismiss the case, that is in favor of the respondent.

geonuc wrote:The court can't rule for or against both parties. Even if they dismiss the case, that is in favor of the respondent.

Blech. The only way I'd make a good lawyer is if I got to grand stand like they do on television.

geonuc wrote:The court can't rule for or against both parties. Even if they dismiss the case, that is in favor of the respondent.

That's why I asked, if they are all about precedent, what happens when the precedent is too important to ignore but it would mean it rules against the actual specific case and the specifics of the case conflict with the precedent they wish to set?
I ask because you said that they live and breathe precedent. That to me implies they would rule against the plaintiff in favor of setting the precedent.

See what I was getting at?

vendic wrote:

geonuc wrote:The court can't rule for or against both parties. Even if they dismiss the case, that is in favor of the respondent.

That's why I asked, if they are all about precedent, what happens when the precedent is too important to ignore but it would mean it rules against the actual specific case and the specifics of the case conflict with the precedent they wish to set?
I ask because you said that they live and breathe precedent. That to me implies they would rule against the plaintiff in favor of setting the precedent.

See what I was getting at?

I'm confused. Why is the Supreme Court obligated to help out the plaintiff? They certainly don't in many cases.

I'm not saying they are obliged to help anyone at all.

I'm saying that if they live and breathe precedent then what happens in those cases where the precedent they want to set differs from the outcome of the plaintiffs case that they would wish to have?.
It can also be a case of ruling for the plaintiff setting a precedent that they don't want.
The latter case however seems less likely since they "live and breathe precedent".

Basically when there is a case, and the precedent that it can set is being heard, it's not always going to be such that the combinations align in agreement.
So what I want to know is how the judges handle that.

e.g. A case that needs to set a precedent of needing to limit excessive police power is combined with the situation that if they limit the power a multi murderer is released.
Worse still, if they conclude that a person is innocent, but setting that precedent would allow actual criminals to not get convicted.

For example, some states are refusing to allow DNA testing to exonerate death row inmates. The argument is that they have had due process and have exhausted their appeals. What happens if a lawyer managed to get the DNA done that showed the persons innocence?
If it was heard, then it may open the door to never ending appeals based on new analysis methods, but if they don't agree with it then they let an innocent person die.
The SC hasn't touched such a case afaik.
My example is probably completely flawed but is there to serve to highlight the thrust of my question as opposed to making any specific claim.

If what geonuc says is correct then they will rule in favor of the precedent over the specific case. Take one for the team plaintiff.
Or, fuck, our legal system just turned to shit making it next to impossible to convict the guilty but hey, we got one innocent person to get justice.

vendic wrote:

geonuc wrote:The court can't rule for or against both parties. Even if they dismiss the case, that is in favor of the respondent.

That's why I asked, if they are all about precedent, what happens when the precedent is too important to ignore but it would mean it rules against the actual specific case and the specifics of the case conflict with the precedent they wish to set?
I ask because you said that they live and breathe precedent. That to me implies they would rule against the plaintiff in favor of setting the precedent.

See what I was getting at?

What?

Precedent informs the court as to how to rule with a given set of of circumstances. I really don't understand what you're missing.

geonuc wrote:What?

Precedent informs the court as to how to rule with a given set of of circumstances. I really don't understand what you're missing.

Does their function of setting precedent influence what cases they hear?

It's been a while since I briefed any SCOTUS decision, but I seem to remember instances where the government's power was reduced, while still upholding a conviction or decision against someone. I might be mistaken or be summarizing too widely. It can be an issue of perception, that while technically losing the principle at issue, the larger precedent widens the general right or opens the door to future suits.

The way a case is decided is frequently based on what principles are being argued by the opposing sides. In Con Law class, we often debated whether they should have used a different principle. Sometimes the court chooses suits in a specific order over several years in order to establish a line of precedent in order to build up to a case. This is because they often have to resolve one principle before it allows them to resolve another principle, and that means hearing cases predicated on certain principles. If they espouse a principle before they've laid groundwork, then they are often accused of "legislating from the bench" (which they are frequently accused of anyway).

For example, some First Amendment cases, like obscenity cases, limited the rules about what test the government should use to consider text or images obscene (arguably relaxing laws against obscenity), yet in the same case upheld a conviction of the person who was producing or disseminating them (Miller vs. California). Religious freedom can be limited with regards to activities deemed illegal by state, federal or international standards, but the state can choose not to limit religious freedom (Employment Division v. Smith, Gonsalez vs. O Centro Espirita).

In Roe v. Wade, the court found that a woman has a right to an abortion, while also finding that the state has a compelling interest in regulating it. In Everson vs. Board of Education, SCOTUS both accepted there is a wall of separation between church and state, incorporated the fourteenth amendment, and found that tax moneys could not be taken to support religion, but found that spending tax money on busing students to private schools (96% of which were Catholic schools) was allowable.

Tarragon wrote:It's been a while since I briefed any SCOTUS decision, but I seem to remember instances where the government's power was reduced, while still upholding a conviction or decision against someone. I might be mistaken or be summarizing too widely. It can be an issue of perception, that while technically losing the principle at issue, the larger precedent widens the general right or opens the door to future suits.

The way a case is decided is frequently based on what principles are being argued by the opposing sides. In Con Law class, we often debated whether they should have used a different principle. Sometimes the court chooses suits in a specific order over several years in order to establish a line of precedent in order to build up to a case. This is because they often have to resolve one principle before it allows them to resolve another principle, and that means hearing cases predicated on certain principles. If they espouse a principle before they've laid groundwork, then they are often accused of "legislating from the bench" (which they are frequently accused of anyway).

For example, some First Amendment cases, like obscenity cases, limited the rules about what test the government should use to consider text or images obscene (arguably relaxing laws against obscenity), yet in the same case upheld a conviction of the person who was producing or disseminating them (Miller vs. California). Religious freedom can be limited with regards to activities deemed illegal by state, federal or international standards, but the state can choose not to limit religious freedom (Employment Division v. Smith, Gonsalez vs. O Centro Espirita).

In Roe v. Wade, the court found that a woman has a right to an abortion, while also finding that the state has a compelling interest in regulating it. In Everson vs. Board of Education, SCOTUS both accepted there is a wall of separation between church and state, incorporated the fourteenth amendment, and found that tax moneys could not be taken to support religion, but found that spending tax money on busing students to private schools (96% of which were Catholic schools) was allowable.

I'd agree with all that.

SciFi Chick wrote:

geonuc wrote:What?

Precedent informs the court as to how to rule with a given set of of circumstances. I really don't understand what you're missing.

Does their function of setting precedent influence what cases they hear?

I want to say yes but your question is a bit vague. The court decides to hear cases based on numerous factors (they vote on whether to hear most cases), including whether they want to establish a new precedent. Although the justices certainly won't admit that in polite company.

The Wikipedia page is as good as any in explaining how and why the Supreme Court reviews a case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

Plus what Tarragon wrote in the post above.

Tarragon wrote:For example, some First Amendment cases, like obscenity cases, limited the rules about what test the government should use to consider text or images obscene (arguably relaxing laws against obscenity), yet in the same case upheld a conviction of the person who was producing or disseminating them (Miller vs. California)...

I looked up this case. It answers exactly what I was asking. Thank you.
Case closed!