3 ms·
I don't see how their opinion being needed is ever disturbing. That's what they exist for. Another example was to determine if we lose constitutional rights whe
by gochi 3y ago
I don't see how their opinion being needed is ever disturbing. That's what they exist for. Another example was to determine if we lose constitutional rights when entering a school.
Perhaps the way you are framing it is providing a lot of the shock. We can position anything as "the only correct opinion to hold" through effective framing. Hence why things eventually end up in SC.
- injb 3y agoI'm not attempting to frame it as "the only correct opinion to hold", just mine. The reason it's disturbing to me is that the supreme court is the last resort. In order for a case to get there, someone very powerful needs to really insist that you can or can't or must do the thing, whatever that may be.
- anon373839 3y agoAnyone is entitled to keep appealing a case until they hit the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only hears the case if it contains issues they find interesting or worthy of exploration. There was a famous case where a guy appealed a parking ticket all the way: the court declined to hear the case, but did write a per curiam scolding him for wasting their time. Here, the underlying claim was paper-thin and apparently fake, but the appeals present interesting legal issues.