5 ms·

Is this not widely known among Americans? I’m Swedish and think of this as common knowledge…

smnrchrds 4y ago
> I’m Swedish and think of this as common knowledge… I am Canadian and it's the first time I have heard this term. I am surprised you know about this from Sweden. I knew of the Canadian term, "leave" or "leave to appeal" though.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  The US Supreme Court gets a lot of attention in Sweden. In this particular case I looked it up in 2018 when I did a bet with a friend that SCOTUS would not overturn Roe vs Wade within four years. I lost that bet, by about a month.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    The Swedish just seem super up to date on Americans in general. Every one I meet apologizes for their English and then proceeds to speak immaculate English.
apocalyptic0n3 4y ago
I think the process is mostly known, but the word "certiorari" is not.
outside1234 4y ago
I think the process is widely known - but I didn't know it had a random Latin name until today. Another good reason not to add jargon for easy to understand things that are better explained in three words.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Another good reason not to add jargon The use of “certiorari” for legal review is literally older than English, so complaining about its continued use as adding jargon is misplaced.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cataphract 4y ago
  It's sort of the other way around. The process changed changed but the name stuck. The history is quite more complicated, if you're interested you can look at a summary here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2022/05/10/a-brief-history-of-certiorari-error-and-appeal/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2022/05/10/a-...
mrkeen 4y ago
Is it always 4 justices, or does it scale with the size of the court?
- nradov 4y ago
  The Supreme Court basically makes their own operating rules. They could set different criteria for granting certiorari if they wanted to, regardless of the number of justices.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  The size of SCOTUS has not changed since 1869. Note that's "18" not "19."
thwayunion 4y ago
US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards. About half of US adults sampled couldn't even name the three branches of government; an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". A huge majority wildly misunderstand the first amendment [1]. I used to volunteer with a civics ed non-profit. Students, almost all whom had already completed their required civics curriculum, entered our program with all sorts of wildly insane misunderstandings of American governance. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnDodYekJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/09/17/americans-civics-survey-sobering-insurrection/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnD...
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". I should stop having impostor syndrome.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    >all three +political+ branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive Would this be more accurate? I'm not sure the judicial branch is considered political enough for "one group" to "have".
    - jfengel 4y ago
      It's not how the term "branch" is commonly used. You could say it, and people would know what you meant... but then, people understood what the Senator meant in the first place. For that matter... the Judicial branch is quite political, and is widely considered to be "had" by one particular political party. 2/3 of its members were nominated by that party, and nominations have been increasingly subjected to ideological litmus tests. (Which they must then pretend not to have until confirmed.)
- 4y ago
tzs 4y ago
Heck, even much of the press in the US is confused about it. It is quite common for cert. denied to be reported as the Court affirming the lower court's decision that is being appealed. All cert. denied means is that the Court decided not to hear the case. That may be because they agree with the lower court, but that is just one reason they might decide not to hear the case. Another reason they might decide cert. is that although they think the case raises issues that they need to deal with, the particular circumstances of this particular case don't present the issue as clearly as they would like. They want to wait until a better case comes along with the issue. Sometimes they want to wait until appeals courts in different regions have considered the issue and explored different approaches to it so more of the possible arguments on both sides have been hashed out.
ubermonkey 4y ago
It is not. Source: Am American. The average joe here doesn't know very much about how the appellate legal system works, or the terms at use.

> I’m Swedish and think of this as common knowledge… I am Canadian and it's the first time I have heard this term. I am surprised you know about this from Sweden. I knew of the Canadian term, "leave" or "leave to appeal" though.

bjornsing 4y ago
The US Supreme Court gets a lot of attention in Sweden. In this particular case I looked it up in 2018 when I did a bet with a friend that SCOTUS would not overturn Roe vs Wade within four years. I lost that bet, by about a month.
- rayiner 4y ago
  The Swedish just seem super up to date on Americans in general. Every one I meet apologizes for their English and then proceeds to speak immaculate English.

apocalyptic0n3 4y ago

I think the process is mostly known, but the word "certiorari" is not.

outside1234 4y ago

I think the process is widely known - but I didn't know it had a random Latin name until today. Another good reason not to add jargon for easy to understand things that are better explained in three words.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Another good reason not to add jargon The use of “certiorari” for legal review is literally older than English, so complaining about its continued use as adding jargon is misplaced.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
cataphract 4y ago
It's sort of the other way around. The process changed changed but the name stuck. The history is quite more complicated, if you're interested you can look at a summary here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2022/05/10/a-brief-history-of-certiorari-error-and-appeal/%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/volokh/2022/05/10/a-...

mrkeen 4y ago

Is it always 4 justices, or does it scale with the size of the court?

nradov 4y ago
The Supreme Court basically makes their own operating rules. They could set different criteria for granting certiorari if they wanted to, regardless of the number of justices.
Cupertino95014 4y ago
The size of SCOTUS has not changed since 1869. Note that's "18" not "19."

thwayunion 4y ago

US civics education is horrendous. Only 30% of US students are proficient in civics standards. About half of US adults sampled couldn't even name the three branches of government; an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". A huge majority wildly misunderstand the first amendment [1]. I used to volunteer with a civics ed non-profit. Students, almost all whom had already completed their required civics curriculum, entered our program with all sorts of wildly insane misunderstandings of American governance. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnDodYekJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/09/17/americans-civics-survey-sobering-insurrection/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnD...

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> an elected US Senator said "Our government wasn’t set up for one group to have all three branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive". I should stop having impostor syndrome.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  >all three +political+ branches of government. … You know, the House, the Senate and the executive Would this be more accurate? I'm not sure the judicial branch is considered political enough for "one group" to "have".
  - jfengel 4y ago
    It's not how the term "branch" is commonly used. You could say it, and people would know what you meant... but then, people understood what the Senator meant in the first place. For that matter... the Judicial branch is quite political, and is widely considered to be "had" by one particular political party. 2/3 of its members were nominated by that party, and nominations have been increasingly subjected to ideological litmus tests. (Which they must then pretend not to have until confirmed.)
4y ago

tzs 4y ago

Heck, even much of the press in the US is confused about it. It is quite common for cert. denied to be reported as the Court affirming the lower court's decision that is being appealed. All cert. denied means is that the Court decided not to hear the case. That may be because they agree with the lower court, but that is just one reason they might decide not to hear the case. Another reason they might decide cert. is that although they think the case raises issues that they need to deal with, the particular circumstances of this particular case don't present the issue as clearly as they would like. They want to wait until a better case comes along with the issue. Sometimes they want to wait until appeals courts in different regions have considered the issue and explored different approaches to it so more of the possible arguments on both sides have been hashed out.

ubermonkey 4y ago

It is not. Source: Am American. The average joe here doesn't know very much about how the appellate legal system works, or the terms at use.