Roberts Court Refusal

Do you know for sure that it was Roberts who voted not to hear the case? If not, don't be so quick to judge.

 

For much of the Supreme Court’s history, Congress required it to hear a large percentage of cases appealed from the lower courts. But over the years Congress eliminated parts of this mandatory jurisdiction, granting the Court more discretion to control its own calendar of cases. In 1988 Congress abolished almost all mandatory jurisdiction so that today only a tiny fraction of cases now must be heard on appeal. The Court otherwise has complete discretion to control the nature and number of the cases it reviews by means of the writ (order) of certiorari. The word certiorari comes from Latin and means “to be informed.” The writ of certiorari is an order from a higher court directing a lower court to send the record of a case for review. The Court has long considered requests for writs of certiorari according to the rule of four, which says that if four justices decide to “grant cert,” in the usual colloquial phrase, the Court will agree to hear the case. Of the 6,000 or so certiorari (cert) petitions filed each year, the Court agrees to consider no more than about 150 and sometimes fewer.

Source: MSN Encarta

 

Loren is right, we don't know with the info at hand whether Roberts was part of that decision. Believe me, I would love to know, as I believe this is an issue that needs to be addressed (along with the other problems created by the Lemon test. I've also said that I'm, and I still remain, skeptical about him until this Court terms decisions and opinions are out. He is far from getting a blind pass from me, but I'll also not blindly accuse him.

 

Typically, in order for SCOTUS to consider hearing a case from a lower court, there must be sufficient cause, or compelling reason.

In most circumstances, these cases are discretionary. The party losing in the Federal Court of Appeals often will file a "Petition for Certiorari" asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. To a lay person, this is an appeal, but in the Supreme Court of the United States an "appeal" is always "as of right" and cases heard by exercise of the Court's discretion (by granting the Petition for Certiorari) are not technically appeals. The news media often doesn’t make this distinction.

The petitioner must state the reason why it is felt the Petition for Certiorari. According to SCOTUS Rule 10, a petition for writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons.

It requires at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to agree that compelling reasons exist, and to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, very few, selected cases (fewer than 100 a year) by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I personally fail to see how the refusal to grant the petition in this case is in any way concerning, disturbing, or even worth mentioning. There are literally thousands of such petitions filed every year. SCOTUS cannot, and will not hear them all. That's what the lower courts are for.

 

John, thanks for the info re cert. I know I heard that a long time ago in undergrad Con Law but long since forgot it. And you're right. Though I believe they should have heard the case, given the context of the volume of cases filed with them they are required to be very selective we won't all agree on what should be heard.