The fact that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in a case is no guarantee that the justuces will hear it.?

Question

Describe the conditions a case generally must meet to have a good chance of being selected for full consideration by the court.

Answer 1

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.
These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is distinctly American in concept and function, as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence. .The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe, he remarked, .but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.. The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government.

The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American experiment in democracy with the oldest written Constitution still in force. The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society’s need for order and the individual’s right to freedom. To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and co-equal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government.

The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of judicial review has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a living Constitution whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.

While the function of judicial review is not explicitly provided in the Constitution, it had been anticipated before the adoption of that document. Prior to 1789, state courts had already overturned legislative acts which conflicted with state constitutions. Moreover, many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to assume this role in regard to the Constitution; Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for example, had underlined the importance of judicial review in the Federalist Papers, which urged adoption of the Constitution.

Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court.s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. .It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,. he declared. In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application .would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves..

The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with Cases and Controversies. John Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases.

The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since more than 7,000 civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts. The Supreme Court also has .original jurisdiction in a very small number of cases arising out of disputes between States or between a State and the Federal Government. When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: .We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.
[The foregoing was taken from a booklet prepared by the Supreme Court of the United States, and published with funding from the Supreme Court Historical Society.]

Answer 2

Something that appeals to elderly Supreme court justices. They're getting on in years, old, senile, and without a real work ethic anymore.

Most cases are rejected. To be one of the chosen few, you need to have a legal issue. Facts don't matter. Former Chief Justice Rhenquist said it best, a man's innocence is no need to overturn a death sentence, the only thing that matter is did he get due process of law. That typifies the senile attitude of our highest Court.

The Justices don't really do any work, they have law clerks who research and write the opinions. If the clerks can wake up their senile "Justice" maybe he might edit a little, add a comma, delete a comma.

An interesting legal issue is what the Court likes. It's like finding a toy for a dog, something that gets its attention. Mundane things like guilt or innocence of someone about to go to the electric chair doesn't really concern them. The law clerks dangle some legal issues before the supreme court justices the way we might dangle some twine before a cat. If the cat gets interested, then the Supreme Court takes the case.

In Florida, they had a priest who said someone came to him for confession and confessed to murder, a murder that someone else had been convicted of. The Supreme Court said they didn't want to get involved in the case, so they let the death sentence go forward. Our Supreme Court Justices don't consider the words of a priest to be very important. There's an antireligious attitutde among the Justices. Due Process of Law is first, legal issues, life & death are secondary. Religion is last.

Answer 3

That is correct, the Supreme Court does have a choice as to which cases it will hear. Usually, the SC will always consider reviewing cases that involve the consitutionality of a law or the extent of governmental powers.

Answer 4

Short and sweet answer - the justices pick which cases they want to hear. There is a process for picking and they can only pick a certain number of cases per year. They pick cases that involve situations that do not fit into prior case law. They need to resolve these cases and set a future precedent.

Answer 5

Well all judges were lawyers to start with, and if the case requires setting a really touchy precedent, they will simply decline to rule. You see tha law is not "black and white", it's grey, and lawyers make their living by fooling around in this fog in the courtroom. A clear "yes" or "no" would make the only role of courts to be one of determining guilt or innocence of the accused, and you wouldn't need as many lawyers for that. That is why for every ruling against something, there is apt to be, even obscure, as many rulings in favor. This is why we hold lawyers in contempt, and have regarded it as the "second oldest profession" for centuries. And why they are rich, become our judges and politicians, start and solve wars, and send the rest of us to die for rights they are all the while thinking of new ways to take away from us.

Answer 6

Yes. It's up to the Justices. The only condition is that enough must want to hear it.