4 ms·

>> "the lower court is probably right about this and we don't think we need to get involved" > This seems circular. your last sentence IS what constitutes a wor

>> "the lower court is probably right about this and we don't think we need to get involved" > This seems circular. your last sentence IS what constitutes a worthy case (for the SCOTUS) No I was correcting the idea that by passing on a case SCOTUS is blessing the lower court opinion. SCOTUS passes on cases where the justices might completely disagree with the lower court or appellate decision. They pass on cases they think are a huge injustice too.

s1artibartfast 3y ago
I dont understand what you mean by worthy then. >Every year SCOTUS passes on many cases they think are worthy but not worthy enough to justify taking up the court's limited time. It can't just be a "worthy" case. You must be using worthy in a different context than worthy of SCOTUS review. I agree with you that decision or justice of the lower court is irrelevant, the SCOTUS cares about the reasoning behind it. A case is worthy of the SCOTUS if it has a conflicted constitutional questions at the heart of it.
- xenadu02 3y ago
  The comment I was replying to said this: > Also, more simply put, SCOTUS declining to review a case is a tacit (and somewhat weak) way for them to state, "the lower court is probably right about this [...]" I was refuting that notion. It is 100% incorrect. SCOTUS passes up cases they think are wrongly decided all the time. They pass on cases with constitutional questions if the case itself is not suitable (according to whatever criteria they use). They pass on cases that meet all the bars because their calendar is already full with cases they think are more important, often trusting that the issue will present itself again in the future with different case. SCOTUS passing on a case is not any form of agreement with lower courts. Not strong agreement. Not weak agreement.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    yes, and I agree with 99% of what you said. Just not your usage of worthy. I thought I was extremely clear on this point

s1artibartfast 3y ago

I dont understand what you mean by worthy then. >Every year SCOTUS passes on many cases they think are worthy but not worthy enough to justify taking up the court's limited time. It can't just be a "worthy" case. You must be using worthy in a different context than worthy of SCOTUS review. I agree with you that decision or justice of the lower court is irrelevant, the SCOTUS cares about the reasoning behind it. A case is worthy of the SCOTUS if it has a conflicted constitutional questions at the heart of it.

xenadu02 3y ago
The comment I was replying to said this: > Also, more simply put, SCOTUS declining to review a case is a tacit (and somewhat weak) way for them to state, "the lower court is probably right about this [...]" I was refuting that notion. It is 100% incorrect. SCOTUS passes up cases they think are wrongly decided all the time. They pass on cases with constitutional questions if the case itself is not suitable (according to whatever criteria they use). They pass on cases that meet all the bars because their calendar is already full with cases they think are more important, often trusting that the issue will present itself again in the future with different case. SCOTUS passing on a case is not any form of agreement with lower courts. Not strong agreement. Not weak agreement.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  yes, and I agree with 99% of what you said. Just not your usage of worthy. I thought I was extremely clear on this point