Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They are the final arbitor of how a case is seen throught the lens of the constitution.
Yeap they are the final arbitor of what is precident setting cases.
Why dont you know that already?
But not most of the time and not in this case.
No, not most of the time indeed. Sometimes. I mean precedent in law is always pretty strong, it's an unsual case that changes years of precedent.
A supreme court decision is the final path.
How many ohter supreme court decisions have a caveot like that at the end of the decision?
A Supreme Court decision is NOT a final ruling. Congress and the President can change the law, rendering a SCOTUS decision irrelevant.
Courts are required to base decisions on the law, not SCOTUS rulings. A ruling within the law but contrary to a SCOTUS ruling will just about automatically set up a challenge.
Why do you continue to harp on this so-called "caveat?" They made their ruling and explained it. Simple as that. It is neither wrong nor part of some conspiracy just because youo don't like the outcome.
Yep, it's the way the system works that he doesn't like.
The per curium opinion of the majority held that a standard, equal, consistent, and constitutional way of recounting the votes would not be found by the December 12th deadline which it insisted should be observed, and so it reversed the Florida Supreme Court decision and remanded the case back to Florida.[citation needed]
[edit] Conclusion
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 U.S.C. § 5. Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.
http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/papers/docs/03-33.pdf
many law scholors cam out against the decision.
They made thier ruling and then amended it with a caveat that said the ruling can be used in no other case.
How often has the supreme court done that?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD.html In the interest of finality, however, the majority effectively orders the disenfranchisement of an unknown number of voters whose ballots reveal their intentand are therefore legal votes under state lawbut were for some reason rejected by ballot-counting machines. It does so on the basis of the deadlines set forth in Title 3 of the United States Code. Ante, at 11. But, as I have already noted, those provisions merely provide rules of decision for Congress to follow when selecting among conflicting slates of electors. Supra, at 2. They do not prohibit a State from counting what the majority concedes to be legal votes until a bona fide winner is determined. Indeed, in 1960, Hawaii appointed two slates of electors and Congress chose to count the one appointed on January 4, 1961, well after the Title 3 deadlines. See Josephson & Ross, Repairing the Electoral College, 22 J. Legis. 145, 166, n. 154 (1996).5 Thus, nothing prevents the majority, even if it properly found an equal protection violation, from ordering relief appropriate to remedy that violation without depriving Florida voters of their right to have their votes counted. As the majority notes, [a] desire for speed is not a general excuse for ignoring equal protection guarantees. Ante, at 10.
