3 ms·

> Who do you think should decide what the Supreme Court should hear instead? Maybe just the people or institutions who want to appeal.

• crazygringo 4y ago
  But there's WAY more cases that want appeals to be heard than the Supreme Court can hear. Like 7,000-8,000 petitions a year, but only room for 100-150. Somebody has to decide and it obviously can't be the people petitioning because they all just want their own case heard. However, an independent court deciding what to review is the best check and balance against the other two branches.
  • KptMarchewa 4y ago
    The idea that supreme court has to be small is not given by god.
    • crazygringo 4y ago
      Nobody said it was "given by god". Courts at every level turn down appeals. Otherwise every case would be appealed higher and higher and it would be unworkable. Circuit courts work just fine for most cases, they're already courts of appeal. There's no reason why the Supreme Court should be another "regular" appeal court one level higher -- that would just be redundant. Rather, the Supreme Court is reserved for major constitutional questions, the ones over which circuit courts may be particularly divided or lacking in precedent. So I think you might be confusing the role of the Supreme Court with the role of the circuit courts.