2007-03-20 12:15:41 · 5 answers · asked by jerryberry 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They may want these issues to get further examined in the lower courts first.
2007-03-20 12:26:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction over every case with a final judgment that presents a federal question. There are thousands of requests, called petitions for writ of certiorari, that are presented and they agree by a vote of 4 of 9 justices, to take a few dozen cases each year. They look for cases that present questions that have been considered by more than one appellate court before they agree to deal with the issue. In addition, by law, the Supreme Court has to deal with lawsuits between states. If Ohio thinks that it is getting screwed because its border with Kentucky has moved with changes in river patterns, the Supreme Court will appoint a master to hear the case, which likely consists of surveyor reports, and issue a report for them to adopt. Hope that helps.
2007-03-20 19:25:57 · answer #2 · answered by mattapan26 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The court normally only hears a small fraction of cases that apply for its appellate review. It only has so much time on its docket, and it receives hundreds of requests a year.
Usually, it takes cases where it needs to clarify an issue of federal law, especially where there is a "circuit split" meaning some federal courts have ruled one way, and others have reached the opposite conclusion.
2007-03-20 19:22:54 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is at their own discression to take it. Some judges on the court may think the other judges will not follow their job.
2007-03-20 19:21:23 · answer #4 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they have to vote. a simple majority wins the vote.
2007-03-20 19:30:17 · answer #5 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋