This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: on of cases it could hear, and they insist that's all they can handle. How does it decide which ones to hear? Take landmark cases and high profile cases over others, major unanswered broad questions of the constitution, all things equal. How many justices must want to hear a case for it to be heard? Rule of 4. When 4 justices want to hear, they do so by precedent, nothing about it in Constitution. Mar. 13: what cases are coming before them? Ebb and flow to cases. Technological advances... b4 the Internet, not much about Internet privacy. Cell phone stuff, etc., in twenty years there probably wont be anything going on deciding about the internet anymore. At that point they'll just refuse to hear the case because they've already decided on a similar case. Cases are also brought to SC strategically, being sponsored by interest groups or interested parties. SC doesn't necessarily look like the state courts. B4 Clinton 12 years of republican pres, 20 of 24 years presidents, increasingly conservative federal courts. A lot of state courts liberal. Groups would realize that a certain time might be good to bring to state, others to federal. Often there are predictable differences. Solicitor general (Ted Olson, wife Barbara was TV commentator who was on one of the 9-11 flights, probably to Pennsylvania) is among most important, along w/ attorney general and deputy whatever, represents the country in a lawsuit, good deal of influence on what cases come to supreme court, very close working relationship w/ the supreme court. US is in court all the time, being sued or suing, and wins sometimes loses others. Solicitor general's office decides whether to appeal it to higher court. Loses in district court, might bring it to appeals court (circuit court), if loses there might bring to Supreme Court. If solicitor general appeals to SC, SC will usually take it... huge influence. Solicitor general only brings so many cases in front of SC; they weed out most, while a single person only brings his one case. This is a guy appointed by the president. If there is interpretation of state law, then it won't come to federal court. Big vs. little question, Interest groups, Personal choice of members, Ebb and flow of tech/time, whatever. Opinions come from Supreme Court, concurring and dissenting opinions. Someone who agrees or disagrees with the majority, but for a different reason. Why write these opinions? How decide who? Chief justice in majority, he gets to decide who writes. If he's not in majority, then the senior justice in the majority gets to choose. How do they choose? They could write it themselves if it's a big deal. If not, one way they decide is give it to somebody who hasn't written in a while... other times they give it to better Downloaded from: www.yumesorah.com POL1040ZilNotes1.pdf Page 8 of 10 POL 1040H American Politics Professor Zilber Spring 2003 Notes Entire Semester writer, some rely on clerks a lot while others write more themselves, and others are more convincing. Some know more about certain technical issues than ot...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/19/2008 for the course POL 1040 taught by Professor Zilber during the Spring '03 term at Yeshiva.
- Spring '03
- American Politics