We live in a Kakistocracy

[Annie]

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 intent–and are therefore legal votes under state law–but 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.

Ok, college paper/dissertation/report claims that the majority of the Supreme Court ordered the disenfranchisment of many voters. So they are looking at how to address within the Electoral College.

Not so hard.

In any case, so what? What do 50 links from law professors have to do with Supreme Court ruling? Do you think there is one case where there is unanimity
of opinion from lawyers, law schools? Get real, it's the nature of the legal profession.

 

[Annie]

It is widely seen in the law scholorship field as a political decision by the majority.

Well yeah Goober. It certainly was.

 

[Truthmatters]

They are not above scrutiny.

I and all the legal scholors have the right to critic their decision.

They made a bad one here and placed the arbitary deadlines over the scantity of the vote and did not apply equal protect rules to this case.

It stinks plain and simple

 

[Annie]

They are not above scrutiny.

I and all the legal scholors have the right to critic their decision.

They made a bad one here and placed the arbitary deadlines over the scantity of the vote and did not apply equal protect rules to this case.

It stinks plain and simple

You are a legal scholar?

 

[Truthmatters]

I am an American who values the scanctity of the vote and agree with these legal scholors.

 

[Annie]

I am an American who values the scanctity of the vote and agree with these legal scholors.

Bully. Seriously, how many other journal articles have you read on the electoral college, unrelated to 2000? How can you recognize bias if you only read those you agree with?

 

[jillian]

It is NOT the Supreme Court's job to set precedent. The fact that lower courts use higher court rulings as precedent is not dictated by law, or any other written rule.

Why don't YOU know THAT?

It IS the job of the Supreme Court to set precedent. Are you sure you meant to imply otherwise? And yes, we have a common law system, so it IS the obligation of lower courts to apply that precedent.

 

[Truthmatters]

Thank you jillian, I sometimes think they will say the opposite of anything I say.

 

[Annie]

It IS the job of the Supreme Court to set precedent. Are you sure you meant to imply otherwise? And yes, we have a common law system, so it IS the obligation of lower courts to apply that precedent.

How often is precedent set Jillian? In actuality isn't it true, that mostly they reverse or uphold something decided by lower courts? Even when reversed, it's usually with remedies suggested on how the lower courts should take into consideration.

 

[Truthmatters]

In doing so it sets precident.

Removing a law which was incorrectly desideed would leave it for aomeone to use for precedent.

Confirming a contested ruling sets precedent for future use.

They are were you appeal to when you believe your case was wrongly decided.

Why cant you process that?

 

[Gunny]

It IS the job of the Supreme Court to set precedent. Are you sure you meant to imply otherwise? And yes, we have a common law system, so it IS the obligation of lower courts to apply that precedent.

I disagree. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret law and/or determine its Constitutionality. It has the option of setting a mandatory precedent, using a persuasive precedent, or not setting one at all; which, in this case, it chose the last.

"IF" the precedent is set, and "on point" a lower court would be obligated by custom to apply that precedent, but it CAN rule against it if it wishes so long as the ruling is within the confines of the law. That isn't to say it would survive appeal; only that ruling against precedent CAN be done.

In the case of the Supreme Court, it has no higher court decisions to consider. Only persuasive precedents set by lower courts, previous Supreme Court decisions, custom, and the Constitution.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you jillian, I sometimes think they will say the opposite of anything I say.

When you're wrong, you're wrong.

 

[Gunny]

In doing so it sets precident.

Removing a law which was incorrectly desideed would leave it for aomeone to use for precedent.

Confirming a contested ruling sets precedent for future use.

They are were you appeal to when you believe your case was wrongly decided.

Why cant you process that?

I suggest you do a little research. You are incorrect.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent


In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The term may also refer to the collective body of case law that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.

Just think how the converstation would go if everyone just said "your wrong" and gave no proof of why the other was wrong?

 

[Gunny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent


In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. The term may also refer to the collective body of case law that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.

Just think how the converstation would go if everyone just said "your wrong" and gave no proof of why the other was wrong?

I just provided you proof that you are wrong. We can solve this right now. Get out your wikipedia copy of the Constitution and show us exactly where it states that the Supreme Court of the United States is required to set a precedent with each and every ruling.

UNTIL you do, the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States ruled otherwise says you're wrong.

 

[Diuretic]

That's interesting that the Supreme Court sought to quarantine its decision. I suppose it can instruct itself.

 

[jillian]

How often is precedent set Jillian? In actuality isn't it true, that mostly they reverse or uphold something decided by lower courts? Even when reversed, it's usually with remedies suggested on how the lower courts should take into consideration.

Given that the Supreme Court only grants cert when there's a question that requires it to set precedent, every decision is binding on every other Court.

.... except in Bush v Gore, of course....

If the SCOTUS was correct, why limit the decision to that case only? Wouldn't it apply to every similar case... unless it was a sham?

As to the rest of what you said, I'm not quite certain why you think it's relevant to the issue of precedent that the Court will remand cases with instructions?

 

[jillian]

I disagree. It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret law and/or determine its Constitutionality. It has the option of setting a mandatory precedent, using a persuasive precedent, or not setting one at all; which, in this case, it chose the last.

"IF" the precedent is set, and "on point" a lower court would be obligated by custom to apply that precedent, but it CAN rule against it if it wishes so long as the ruling is within the confines of the law. That isn't to say it would survive appeal; only that ruling against precedent CAN be done.

In the case of the Supreme Court, it has no higher court decisions to consider. Only persuasive precedents set by lower courts, previous Supreme Court decisions, custom, and the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is required to look at stare decisis and its OWN precedents. No lower Court determination will be binding upon it, but it is bound by its own decisions unless it chooses to limit or reverse its prior holdings.

There are issues which are matters of first impression in which the Court can view, as persuasive authority, any law, decision, policy or otherwise. There is nothing that is not a "holding" of a case that it not binding. What the Court does have leeway in is in deciding how much of the dicta of prior cases it wishes to apply, if at all, given that dicta is merely the court opining about a particular case and controversy or issue which may not be before it at the time.

I would also remind you that, again, given we are a common law nation modeled after the British common law (except for Louisiana which is a code state modeled after the French system) the decisions of the high court ARE law. It is not by custom that precedent governs. It is the mandate of our entire judicial system.

 

[jillian]

That's interesting that the Supreme Court sought to quarantine its decision. I suppose it can instruct itself.

lol... but it doesn't even do that!!!

I know of no other decision which is specifically held by the Court to have no precedential value, though there have been others narrowly limited to their facts. Bush v Gore didn't even do that. If the same facts were before the Court again, it divested itself of the obligation to apply that earlier decision.

 

[Gunny]

The Supreme Court is required to look at stare decisis and its OWN precedents. No lower Court determination will be binding upon it, but it is bound by its own decisions unless it chooses to limit or reverse its prior holdings.

There are issues which are matters of first impression in which the Court can view, as persuasive authority, any law, decision, policy or otherwise. There is nothing that is not a "holding" of a case that it not binding. What the Court does have leeway in is in deciding how much of the dicta of prior cases it wishes to apply, if at all, given that dicta is merely the court opining about a particular case and controversy or issue which may not be before it at the time.

I would also remind you that, again, given we are a common law nation modeled after the British common law (except for Louisiana which is a code state modeled after the French system) the decisions of the high court ARE law. It is not by custom that precedent governs. It is the mandate of our entire judicial system.

I'll give you the argument on stare decisis on technicality since being Perry Mason's daughter, you know as well as I do how easy it is to get around it. On that, I was incorrect in my statement.

Which STILL does not support the 20+ plus pages of whining because the Supreme Court made a decision to NOT set a precedent. IMO, you answer your following post in this one:

"... but it is bound by its own decisions unless it chooses to limit or reverse its prior holdings."

My take on it is the Supreme Court did not want to get into the business of deciding elections, and considering FL is an individual state and its election laws may or may not coincide with any of the 49 other states, they considered the circumstances -- they did involve specific dates and a time limit -- unique enough to not wish to set a precedent for future elections. They may not have set a precedent to refer back to, but neither did they set one to bind themselves to.

I actually agree with not setting a precedent because I can just see the gears turning in the heads of political strategists nationwide on how to use it to unfair advantage.