4 ms·

The justices definitely think about the litigants, and similarly situated parties. Sotomayor and Ginsburg regularly made litigant-related emotional appeals (usu

by nickff 6y ago

The justices definitely think about the litigants, and similarly situated parties. Sotomayor and Ginsburg regularly made litigant-related emotional appeals (usually near the end of oral argument), notably in the healthcare and DAPA/DACA cases. I do not recall Scalia making emotional appeals, but he was sympathetic to the administrative agencies (in a manner which I see as inconsistent with most of his other jurisprudence, and which he later drew back from).

gamblor956 6y ago
Yes, they think about the litigants during oral arguments, and in dicta (side remarks in an opinion) where it doesn't matter. The facts of the litigants don't matter to the legal reasoning, because SCOTUS decides matters of law, not fact.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, the Supreme Court is actually the court of first instance for some types of cases, and decides both matters for those cases. It can also decide matters of fact in some cases, for various reasons. Those situations aside, I think Sotomayor and Ginsburg's emotional appeals in oral argument are representative of how they are actually deciding those cases (i.e. for reasons related to the specifics of litigants), and that the written opinions may simply be a legal veneer over their true motives.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Well, the Supreme Court is actually the court of first instance for some types of cases, and decides both matters for those cases It's called "original jurisdiction" and for SCOTUS their scope of original jurisdiction is limited to cases between the states or involving ambassadors or other "public ministers." As a portion of SCOTUS' load, such cases are such a small fraction that it can be decades between such cases. SCOTUS otherwise does not decide matters of fact because it's not within their jurisdiction to do so as an appellate court. They can overturn lower-court rulings on the facts, but in doing so must remand to the lower courts for new rulings on the facts. Additionally, while they can take facts into account in their rulings, such facts must be part of the record established in the lower courts (i.e., the trial courts), unless it is a case of original jurisdiction for SCOTUS (meaning state vs state cases).

by nickff 6y ago

gamblor956 6y ago

Yes, they think about the litigants during oral arguments, and in dicta (side remarks in an opinion) where it doesn't matter. The facts of the litigants don't matter to the legal reasoning, because SCOTUS decides matters of law, not fact.

nickff 6y ago
Well, the Supreme Court is actually the court of first instance for some types of cases, and decides both matters for those cases. It can also decide matters of fact in some cases, for various reasons. Those situations aside, I think Sotomayor and Ginsburg's emotional appeals in oral argument are representative of how they are actually deciding those cases (i.e. for reasons related to the specifics of litigants), and that the written opinions may simply be a legal veneer over their true motives.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Well, the Supreme Court is actually the court of first instance for some types of cases, and decides both matters for those cases It's called "original jurisdiction" and for SCOTUS their scope of original jurisdiction is limited to cases between the states or involving ambassadors or other "public ministers." As a portion of SCOTUS' load, such cases are such a small fraction that it can be decades between such cases. SCOTUS otherwise does not decide matters of fact because it's not within their jurisdiction to do so as an appellate court. They can overturn lower-court rulings on the facts, but in doing so must remand to the lower courts for new rulings on the facts. Additionally, while they can take facts into account in their rulings, such facts must be part of the record established in the lower courts (i.e., the trial courts), unless it is a case of original jurisdiction for SCOTUS (meaning state vs state cases).