2 ms·

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that lower courts try to see where SCOTUS is going and act accordingly. SCOTUS is going in the direction of limiting f

I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is that lower courts try to see where SCOTUS is going and act accordingly. SCOTUS is going in the direction of limiting federal powers. This can be both good and bad and I’m not here commenting on what I think of this direction but it seems to me that recent decisions do play a role in terms of how the lower courts perceive the direction of things.

kragen 2y ago
they're not supposed to do that, which is why this decision devotes so many pages to explaining how this decision is actually in accordance with all the previous court decisions that somehow mysteriously failed to strike down this law at any time in the last 156 years but surely pittman is hoping the supreme court will take the opportunity presented by the almost inevitable appeal of this case to narrow federal authority dramatically
- skhunted 2y ago
  A friend of mine is a lawyer for DOJ and he indicated to me that lower courts do try to suss out where SCOTUS is going and rule accordingly. I don’t believe this ruling would have been made if recent SCOTUS rulings were different. I have not talked to him about this case and we don’t talk legal stuff much so he may have just been humoring me with my perception that lower courts try to suss out where the winds are blowing. One can use precedents and case law to pretty much argue anything (within reason) since there are enough contradicting rulings over the last 200 years. In mathematical logic terminology the Constitution and legal precedents together do not form a consistent system. Thus a lot of this stuff comes down to what is in fashion today so to speak. Judge Napolitano wrote an argument on why secession is a right of each state and wrote an argument for why this wasn’t specifically written in the Constitution. A lot of this stuff is just making shit up or selectively using precedents to justify a desired conclusion. One can do this in an inconsistent system.
  - kragen 2y ago
    yup

kragen 2y ago

they're not supposed to do that, which is why this decision devotes so many pages to explaining how this decision is actually in accordance with all the previous court decisions that somehow mysteriously failed to strike down this law at any time in the last 156 years but surely pittman is hoping the supreme court will take the opportunity presented by the almost inevitable appeal of this case to narrow federal authority dramatically

skhunted 2y ago
A friend of mine is a lawyer for DOJ and he indicated to me that lower courts do try to suss out where SCOTUS is going and rule accordingly. I don’t believe this ruling would have been made if recent SCOTUS rulings were different. I have not talked to him about this case and we don’t talk legal stuff much so he may have just been humoring me with my perception that lower courts try to suss out where the winds are blowing. One can use precedents and case law to pretty much argue anything (within reason) since there are enough contradicting rulings over the last 200 years. In mathematical logic terminology the Constitution and legal precedents together do not form a consistent system. Thus a lot of this stuff comes down to what is in fashion today so to speak. Judge Napolitano wrote an argument on why secession is a right of each state and wrote an argument for why this wasn’t specifically written in the Constitution. A lot of this stuff is just making shit up or selectively using precedents to justify a desired conclusion. One can do this in an inconsistent system.
- kragen 2y ago
  yup