The only way is by surviving "the rule of four".
Subscribe to our channel! http://goo.gl/0bsAjO
Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what's really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com to get up to speed on everything from Kurdistan to the Kim Kardashian app.
Most often, the US Supreme Court grants or denies petitions to hear a case after reviewing a written request called a "petition for writ of certiorari". Also called "the writ of cert", it is reviewed by the Justices and granting the petition depends on whether or not it passes "the rule of four". If it does, the case is probably one of three types: a case of national importance, a case in which a lower court decision has invalidated federal law, or a case involving a split decision in lower courts. Famously, Bush v. Gore was an example of national importance, Gonzales v. Raich was a case in which a lower court invalidated federal law, and Obergefell v. Hodges was selected by the Court in order to resolve a circuit split decision. By following this protocol of case selection, the Court has been designed to be reactive to legislative decisions made in other branches of government, as opposed to an active legislative body that seeks to create and institute new laws. Overall, the result of this design is a Court that prioritizes case selections that will enable them to enforce the uniformity of federal law throughout the country.
Check out our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H
Or on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o
There are really 4 levels, at the appealete level there are two levels, the first is a 3 judge panel, the losing party then can ask the case to be heard Enbloc where the whole district judges hear the case.
I am only one in this Country that can override US Supreme Court I am God creation humankind human nature laws cause effect balance Universe elements. Master Three beat all and will challenge anybody body on truth if you have the balls bring it. yes our no?
I can't believe we'll no longer be able to round up misinformed liberals to vote on election day. Everyone knows minorities can't read and liberals only watch fake news. And it's those raciest conservatives who give a forwarding address when they move and register to vote just so they can be called for jury duty. And I'm appalled that anyone would think giving thought to voting 5-7 weeks in advance is necessary or that valid identification is required. It won't be long before they start wanting people to have a job to vote for who will spend the tax dollars of the employed.
Ron, it's a scientific fact that you can't have a pressurized atmosphere next to a vacuum without a solid, physical barrier between them. So fake news would be reporting any leaving of this planet, through this scientifically necessary solid, physical barrier. Now if you want to believe that it's possible for a tin can to smash through a solid, physical barrier, that's part of your religion, not science or reality but fake news.
The end time. The end time will happen for life on Earth in about 3.25 billion years. I know who I'd believe with one easy thing to remember.
A scientist will read dozens of books in his lifetime but still believes he has a lot more to learn.
A religious person barely reads one book and think they know it all.
BTW, you've completely gotten off topic of being a hollow person. Nothing you've said backs up that you're not. A hollow person, using hollow words like fake news. Quit shoving your bullshit religion down my throat, zealot.
Ron, the Bible predicts that in the end time, many will walk away from the faith. God's not interested in quantity as much as the quality of the spirits he is saving. Not only does he say you can't come to him unless he calls you, but that you can't even say that Jesus is the Christ and has risen from the dead and mean it.
If you think it's logical to think that a primate can turn into a human with zero evidence, I feel for you. And if you think because of a theory and Hollywood cgi and green screens your spinning in a circle, again you're as God says, willfully ignorant of the facts, which is stupid on purpose.
And apparently God doesn't want willfully ignorant people in his eternal kingdom, because he doesn't want it infected with educated/indoctrinated idiots.
Hey, if you survive God's wrath at Jesus' return, did you know that the Christians will rule and reign with Christ on Earth for a 1,000 years? You might piss on my grave now, but come the millennial kingdom, I'll ask God for you to be under my thumb for those 1,000 years, so we'll see who has the last laugh. I'll have you cleaning out and maybe even living in a communal prison bathroom, with no soap.
"It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents." - Jew Schumer.
"Given the over-representation of Jews in the Senate, and since Chuck Schumer is Jewish, I urge him to resign in the interest of making the Senate “look a lot more like the America it represents”. states the author of this article:
How things go to SCOTUS when a Republican is President: President makes lawful executive decision. Lower liberal, activist, Federal District Judge blocks Presidents order. It goes to SCOTUS and is overturned because the liberal District Judge is usually wrong. Time, money and emotional energy wasted because of an activist, petulant judge. Thats the true story, Good night dear....
So technically the supreme court could violate your constitutional right to a fair trial. They can refuse to ensure you a fair trial if the judgement of the lower court was blatantly biased? That show the system of justice is broken.
The statement that nobody is entitled to be heard before the Supreme Court is not correct. When one state sues another - like Arizona suing California over who gets how much water out of the Colorado River - those cases have to be tried at the Supreme Court.
1 year lock up for any crime beside white collar and murder would sponsor reputnance behavior. 2 years any white collar would sponsor reputnance behavior. 3 years murder would sponsor reputnance behavior. reputnance means doesn't reoccur. where were you in 2014
Vox forgot to mention and imo should have mentioned that the federal SCOTUS can review state supreme court decisions too when there is a genuine constitutional question like whether the death penalty violates the 8th amendment, etc
hey y'all. if y'all would like to hear more about the supreme court, radiolab actually did a wonderful (if short) spin-off series about it called "more perfect." it's a podcast series, so hopefully commuters would get more out of it too.
also since it's produced by radiolab, i can guarantee that despite being a podcast about the supreme court, it'll be interesting. listen to it here (my fave ep is "the political thicket"): http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect
Damnit Vox, you sucked me in. This was all basic civics. I wanted a simple explanation of how and when all sorts of cases. You explained that there are Federal District Courts, Circuit Courts and then SCOTUS, but some of the cases you used do not follow this rule. eg Bush v Gore was an appeal from a Florida Supreme Court decision. How does that work? Is that how it works for every state? I think I saw a decision recently that was on appeal from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, how do you from there to the Supreme Court, etc.
This video completely left out the jurisdiction of SCOTUS over state courts. Appeals from state courts can be made from the highest court where the case could be heard, which is usually, but not always, the state supreme court. In Florida, a decision from a circuit court can be appealed to a district court of appeal (DCA). If the DCA affirms the decision without an opinion expressly analysing the merits of the case, the decision cannot be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, so in this situation, the decision of the DCA can be appealed to SCOTUS. For SCOTUS to hear an appeal from a state court, the issues being appealed must arise under the US Constitution or federal law, eg. Bush v. Gore arose under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reasons for SCOTUS to decided whether to hear the case is usually when there are different interpretations made in different states.
That was a great video. Whenever I'm in DC, I try to sit in a case. You just show up in the morning at the front of the building. There will be 2 lines- 1 to sit in the whole case, and 1 to just sit for 5 minutes. That said, all the cases I've see where dull stuff.
Yes, the supremacy clause in the US Constitution says, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby," which gives the US Supreme Court authority over the states Supreme Courts. It's equivalent to Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia: "When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."
Are you saying the Supreme Courts of the Australian states and territories have final verdict? That conflicts with your first statement that the High Court of Australia is higher than the Supreme Courts of the Australian states and territories.
The U.S. Supreme Court website is showing the group picture with Scalia. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx But Scalia is not on the biography page of the current justices. The page also lists retired justices that are still alive. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
Many thanks for the insight, it was more or less "inline with my uninformed opinion", but it's always good to get more specific info.
((At least as long as it doesn't mess with Your precious prejudices ;))
In February 2016, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. The following month, President Barack Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland to replace Scalia. However, the Senate was controlled by the Republican Party, which argued that the next president should instead appoint Scalia's successor. Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings on Garland, and Garland's nomination remained before the Senate longer than any other Supreme Court nomination. Garland's nomination expired with the end of the 114th United States Congress. The vacancy caused by Scalia's death has remained unfilled for 409 days, making it just the second Supreme Court vacancy since the end of the Civil War to remain unfilled for more than one year.
Not that I'm very informed in these matters, but I don't think he's been replaced. I think it was "motivated by" the fact that Obama already had nominated 2 sitting supreme Justices.
And It's quite possible that this is one of the last pictures with "all of them" I just thought it "a bit odd" to show a deceased person. And also it gave a picture of the institution that didn't mirror it's current state ((i.e. only 8 of the 9 seats are actually occupied).
It's no big thing I just found it a bit "odd".