3 ms·
The court that this came out of has zero ability to set precedent (I mean other than that they decided a case that may go on to set precedent later). Federal d
by MWil 13y ago
The court that this came out of has zero ability to set precedent (I mean other than that they decided a case that may go on to set precedent later).
Federal district courts are like state trial courts. These judges can pretty much do all sorts of things and we don't really care because they'll get fixed hopefully by the appeals courts.
The appeals courts are the first line of actual precedent but only for those courts that are below them (federal appeals - only binding on lower courts in the same circuit, state appeals - only binding on the lower courts of that state).
Appeals courts are not binding upon other appeals courts and usually the US Supreme Court doesn't like to get involved unless it's so clearly unconstitutional or if there is a circuit split where some have gone one way and some have gone completely another (because the federal system is supposed to be much more uniform than than the individual states).
- D9u 13y agoThanks for spelling it out for me like that. I just hope that enough of us are complaining to everyone who will listen that the spy apparatchik is reined in to be constitutionally acceptable to "We the People."
- MWil 13y agoNo problem and I should point out that I was being cynical when I said "we don't really care" with regards to trial/district courts. The sad truth is if you want to take someone to court or if you are taken to court, if you really want to be satisfied you better be prepared from the outset to go through at least two trials (one to develop the record and one or more to attack/uphold the record). You literally could get a judge at the lowest level that decides he's going to rule based on how he feels that day although you'd like to think not.