Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ellen who wrote (2445)	11/27/2000 12:27:22 PM
From: Ron	Respond to of 3887

Special Palm Beach County ballot Page...click here..its not too late to let your vote be counted: ourworld.compuserve.com

To: Ellen who wrote (2445)	11/27/2000 12:47:00 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Ellen, a writ of certiorari is a writ of review. When a party files a petition for a writ of certiorari, they are asking the court to review the decision of another court. It is discretionary, not mandatory, for the Supreme Court to review a decision of a state court. The Supreme Court will only grant review or certiorari when there is a substantial federal question or questions in dispute.

To: Ellen who wrote (2445)	11/27/2000 12:47:30 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

In a local court, you are guaranteed the right to have your case heard. You just file a suit, and the court hears it. In most jurisdictions, you have the right to one appeal, to an appeal court. There is, however, no right to have your case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, or by most state Supreme Courts. You ask these courts to hear your case, and they decide whether they will or not. That request is a request for certiorari, or cert as we usually use the term. In the case of the US court, they get hundreds or thousands of requests for cert every year, and accept very few of them. Four of the nine justices have to agree to hear a case; if they do, they then grant cert, which means that they will agree to hear argument on the case. (They can still decide after hearing arguments not to make a decision on the case, or to send it back to the lower courts for more seasoning, or review in light of other decisions they have made in the meantime, or for other reasons.) Still, granting cert is a major decision of the court, and means there is an issue there which they think is within their jurisdiction, and which is important enough for them to hear (mere injustice won't do it). In some cases, there is what's called a split in the lower appellate (Circuit) courts, and the SC will grant cert in order to resolve that split. For example, some appeals courts may have interpreted a federal statute one way and some another. Since generally it's considered bad to have a federal law which, say, makes something a crime in California but not in Texas, this is a common source of cert. But it's not relevant in the Bush case. In other cases the SC will grant cert because it wants to look at what a court has done. The general assumption is that at least some justices want to reverse the lower court ruling, or else they wouldn't take the case. This is the situation here. The fact that four justices granted cert implies, though it doesn't prove, that those justices think there is a chance, if not a probability, that they will vote to change the lower court decision. So getting the SC to grant cert was a major positive step for Bush. But by no means does it guarantee a win. The statute in question has never been interpreted, so it's possible that the SC merely thought the statute needed to be looked at and interpreted -- after all, it's over a hundred years old. It's even possible that some justices granted cert in order to vote to invalidate the statute as a federal intrusion on a states rights issue, though I personally doubt that. Hope that clarifies.