Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Regardless of how anyone chooses to interpret SCOTUS not seeing any particular case, the end result remains the same: the lower court ruling stands.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.
Let's pay attention to the conversation at hand:Regardless of how anyone chooses to interpret SCOTUS not seeing any particular case, the end result remains the same: the lower court ruling stands.
Two weeks ago, SCOTUS disagreed.
(my emphasis)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.
I said "it could be said..." And it can. You are, of course, free to disagree with that characterization.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 centsLet'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.
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."I said "it could be said..." And it can. You are, of course, free to disagree with that characterization.
”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.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.
“Past practice”. (Stare decisis, if you will).@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.
False. See posts #18 & #20.The usual “interpretation” is that SCOTUS didn’t think it important (or possible) to overrule a Circuit decision.
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.It doesn’t sound like “SCOTUS AGREES”, but that’s the effect, so both are true.
I'm so sorry that you seem unwilling or unable to read the short thread.I’m so sorrry that you seem unwilling or unable to accept “yes, you are correct“ for an answer.
In that Circuit, it is so.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?