4 ms·

From the argument: "Petitioner’s further contention (Pet. 15-18) that the court of appeals misapplied the Williams standard is not fairly encompassed in the que

From the argument: "Petitioner’s further contention (Pet. 15-18) that the court of appeals misapplied the Williams standard is not fairly encompassed in the question presented and is, in any event, a case-specific challenge that does not warrant this Court’s review." In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain. Edit: to clarify- this is the final statement in the reasoning why due process should not be considered. Read the argument.

tptacek 14y ago
You didn't answer my question.
- hakaaaaak 14y ago
  I did. Their argument was that due process was handled in the preceding two trials and due process should be denied because X and Y, but to the point that a relevant case was misapplied (which should result in appeal), they basically say "umm... that was case specific and yada yada yada we're right".
  - nialo 14y ago
    What exactly do you mean when you say "due process"? can you explain without using the actual words "due process"?
rayiner 14y ago
If I'm your lawyer, and you win, and the other party seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what I write for you. Because it's not my job to insert my judgment about whether I think the Supreme Court should hear the case, my job is only to argue in favor of the interpretation that lets you win the quickest. In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law. That's just the way the adversarial legal system works. Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.

tptacek 14y ago

You didn't answer my question.

hakaaaaak 14y ago
I did. Their argument was that due process was handled in the preceding two trials and due process should be denied because X and Y, but to the point that a relevant case was misapplied (which should result in appeal), they basically say "umm... that was case specific and yada yada yada we're right".
- nialo 14y ago
  What exactly do you mean when you say "due process"? can you explain without using the actual words "due process"?

rayiner 14y ago

If I'm your lawyer, and you win, and the other party seeks an appeal to the Supreme Court, that's exactly what I write for you. Because it's not my job to insert my judgment about whether I think the Supreme Court should hear the case, my job is only to argue in favor of the interpretation that lets you win the quickest. In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law. That's just the way the adversarial legal system works. Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.