Text 6450, 70 rader
Skriven 2010-03-30 23:15:00 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Ward Dossche
Ärende: Re: Question about democ
================================
 -=> On 03-30-10  09:34,  Ward Dossche <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Question about democ <=-

 DS> The Supreme Court does not pass or make laws.  They rule on whether or
 DS> not a law is valid according to the constitution.  In that role, they
 DS> form a check and balance on the legislature -- the body that passes
 DS> laws.

 WD> Then what they did during the 2000 Florida-elections is 
 WD> something different. They did not rule on whether a law was 
 WD> constitutional or not. They ruled on a specific aspect of 
 WD> daily life.

Actually, there were apparently constitutional issues involved.  A quote
from the WIKI article:
(begin quote)
In a per curiam decision, the Court in Bush v. Gore ruled that the
Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also
ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time
limits set by the State of Florida. Three concurring justices also
asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II,   1,
cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that
had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's
previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's
electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the
Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, defeating Democratic
candidate Al Gore, who ended up with 266 electoral votes (with one D.C.
elector abstaining). A majority (270) of the electoral votes is needed
to win the Presidency or Vice Presidency in the Electoral College.

(end quote)


 WD> Same as when they take an appeal of a prisoner on death-row.

I believe that those appeals are also on based on constitutional issues.
If you care to research it, the WIKI lists all of the cases heard by the
Supreme Court.  I'm not a lawyer, but what I saw on a brief scan
supports the statement that the rulings were based on interpretation of
the Constitution.

Of course, there may be exceptions.

 WD> What I do not understand however is that the Justices can
 WD> opt-out to seeing a case. To me that's an extreme case of 
 WD> denying justice.

When they opt out, that means that the lower case ruling stands.

 WD> In 2002 I went to the Supreme Court in Belgium to sue my 
 WD> former employer. 2 weeks ago I received the news that my 
 WD> case was heard and my former employer lost.

Was that an original case? or an appeal from a lower court?  I believe
that our Supreme court does not hear original cases from or between
individuals.

                               Dale Shipp
                  fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:25:08, 30 Mar 2010
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)