3 ms·
I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen arguments presented to the SCOTUS that are absolutely based on hypotheticals, incl
by rodw 6y ago
I don't have an example off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure I've seen arguments presented to the SCOTUS that are absolutely based on hypotheticals, including hypotheticals introduced by the justices themselves.
EDIT: Here's a very recent one: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-coronavirus-vaccine-hypothetical-could-be-a-window-into-the-future/ar-BB13HDlP https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-s-co...
- pc86 6y agoYes the justices ask questions around hypotheticals and can ask the attorneys to make arguments based on hypothetical situations the justices present, but they hear only specific cases, not hypothetical ones, and the decisions refer to the specifics of the attorneys' arguments and the case law only.
- rodw 6y agoOf course. There's no court case that is based entirely on a hypothetical. But it seems exceedingly common - especially on the scale of SCOTUS - to abstract a specific event or argument to the more general one. Take constitutional challenge to Obamacare for example. I assume they had to point to someone specific and say "this law violates that person's rights", but they absolutely "considered" and "responded to" the hypothetical in that case.