'The Fall of Minneapolis' (documentary)

[A2SG]

Then that general interpretation is a wrongful interpretation. The Supreme Court gets a ton of appeals, and can only take so many cases per term. According to their website, "The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each Term. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases." So of the appeals, only about 1% of them are taken up. While I expect the Supreme Court does agree with the majority of the cases that are appealed to them (or at least would end up agreeing with them after argument is held), I don't think it goes as high as 99%.

In regards to Chauvin's case, it doesn't seem to tick off any of the usual things that would make the Supreme Court pick it up. Is it a circuit split? Definitely not. Does it cover some important constitutional question? Not really. Is any ruling likely to be applicable in future cases? Not that I see. Are there a lot of people clamoring for the Supreme Court to take it up? Not that I know of. Even if Chauvin was treated unfairly, there's not really anything in the case that seems like it would make the Supreme Court want to pick it up over the other thousands of petitions that are sent to them.

Regardless of how anyone chooses to interpret SCOTUS not seeing any particular case, the end result remains the same: the lower court ruling stands.

-- A2SG, making no comment on the specific issues of the case.....

 

[zippy2006]

Regardless of how anyone chooses to interpret SCOTUS not seeing any particular case, the end result remains the same: the lower court ruling stands.

Let's pay attention to the conversation at hand:

Two weeks ago, SCOTUS disagreed.

Well, if SCOTUS decides not to take a case, that means the lower court ruling stands. It could be said that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling.

(my emphasis)

Two claims: "SCOTUS disagreed," and, "It could be said that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling." These are both false claims. Are you prepared to admit that they are false? That you were wrong? Because these claims are what the conversation is about, not whether the lower court ruling stands.

 

[A2SG]

Let's pay attention to the conversation at hand:

(my emphasis)

Two claims: "SCOTUS disagreed," and, "It could be said that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling." These are both false claims. Are you prepared to admit that they are false? That you were wrong? Because these claims are what the conversation is about, not whether the lower court ruling stands.

I said "it could be said..." And it can. You are, of course, free to disagree with that characterization.

But, if I'm interrupting the conversation, feel free to disregard my contribution, and I'll just go merrily on my way.

-- A2SG, movin' right along....

 

[Pommer]

Let's pay attention to the conversation at hand:



(my emphasis)

Two claims: "SCOTUS disagreed," and, "It could be said that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling." These are both false claims. Are you prepared to admit that they are false? That you were wrong? Because these claims are what the conversation is about, not whether the lower court ruling stands.

A nickel is five cents

 

[zippy2006]

I said "it could be said..." And it can. You are, of course, free to disagree with that characterization.

Sure, but let me correct it for you: "It could be said [by those engaged in fallacious reasoning] that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling."

Doubling-down on erroneous, fallacious statements is not a good look. But I suppose these days people will do anything to avoid admitting that they were wrong. Truth and justice are of no concern.

 

[Pommer]

Sure, but let me correct it for you: "It could be said [by those engaged in fallacious reasoning] that SCOTUS agreed with the lower court ruling."

Doubling-down on erroneous, fallacious statements is not a good look. But I suppose these days people will do anything to avoid admitting that they were wrong. Truth and justice are of no concern.

”SCOTUS allows the lower court ruling to stand” can be characterized as “SCOTUS agrees with appellate court“ and “SCOTUS doesn’t disagree enough with appellate court enough to grant certiorari“ in equal measure without either being totally correct or totally wrong.

Non-argument

 

[zippy2006]

@Pommer, here is the question. Is this a valid inference, "The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, therefore the Supreme Court agreed with the decision"? This is the claim that has been presented. Is it valid or invalid?

As has been shown sufficiently, the inference is invalid/fallacious. Invalid reasoning can stumble upon true conclusions, but it provides no justification for the knowledge of such conclusions. The drawing of the conclusion is therefore irrational.

 

[Pommer]

@Pommer, here is the question. Is this a valid inference, "The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari, therefore the Supreme Court agreed with the decision"? This is the claim that has been presented. Is it valid or invalid?

As has been shown sufficiently, the inference is invalid/fallacious. Invalid reasoning can stumble upon true conclusions, but it provides no justification for the knowledge of such conclusions. The drawing of the conclusion is therefore irrational.

“Past practice”. (Stare decisis, if you will).
The usual “interpretation” is that SCOTUS didn’t think it important (or possible) to overrule a Circuit decision.
It doesn’t sound like “SCOTUS AGREES”, but that’s the effect, so both are true.

 

[zippy2006]

The usual “interpretation” is that SCOTUS didn’t think it important (or possible) to overrule a Circuit decision.

False. See posts #18 & #20.

 

[Pommer]

False. See posts #18 & #20.

I’m so sorrry that you seem unwilling or unable to accept “yes, you are correct“ for an answer.
Fare thee well.

 

[zippy2006]

It doesn’t sound like “SCOTUS AGREES”, but that’s the effect, so both are true.

Also false. If the effect was agreement, then the circuit ruling would possess an augmented status after after the Supreme Court decides not to grant certiorari. But it doesn't.

 

[zippy2006]

I’m so sorrry that you seem unwilling or unable to accept “yes, you are correct“ for an answer.

I'm so sorry that you seem unwilling or unable to read the short thread.

 

[Pommer]

Also false. If the effect was agreement, then the circuit ruling would possess an augmented status after after the Supreme Court decides not to grant certiorari. But it doesn't.

In that Circuit, it is so.
Should there be a split in how Circuits decide similarly situated cases, then SCOTUS may weigh in on the issue.
That’s how our system works, different Circuits can have different interpretations of how the Law works (or not) and why (or why not); “problems” that lead to further cases can lead to SCOTUS to rule for the entire land.