[blindLaw] Help understanding SCOTUS responses & Authority

Sat Oct 22 10:37:35 UTC 2022

That doesn't happen; like I said, there's no such thing as a
reconsideration of denial of cert. They do not give a fuck if they deny
cert in a case that maybe they would've wanted to take, because they don't
care about the individual case in the first place, only about the legal
issues. And legal issues will come up again in some other case presented
eventually.

If anything, the opposite happens: sometimes (rarely) they grant cert but
then — after briefing and possibly even after oral argument — retract it
("denied as improvidently granted"). That lets them consider a case but
then not rule on it either way, just as if they'd never granted cert.

If they're unsure whether or not they want to grant cert, they just sit on
it for months. They have no deadline at all. Neither do any other federal
courts. There is no "lazy judge" rule.

For permissive appeals, they can also take however many or however few
cases they want to. Same is true for all the federal appellate courts.
Unless there's a legal right to appeal — in which case there's no request
for permission to appeal (like cert) in the first place — the court can say
yes or no however it wants.

You seem to be under the impression that SCOTUS is bound by rules. It isn't.

It is at the top of the hierarchy, so for the most part it only has to obey
Article 3 of the Constitution, and it interprets that for itself without
anyone else having review of its interpretation. There are also a (very
very) few laws that mandate how SCOTUS operates.

Mostly, it makes its own rules however it pleases, and the actual rules
they make mostly only apply to other people. They just do what they want.

I strongly recommend you go read the entirety of the SCOTUS rules (which,
remember, they set themselves): https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct

It's not that long, and well worth the read given your curiosity.

I suggest you also read the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap

Those are set by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
with approval by the Supreme Court, under the Rules Enabling Act:
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/about-rulemaking-process

If you find rules that you think should be changed, other than SCOTUS'
(which they don't have jurisdiction over), you're confident you understand
what they currently are, and you can make a good argument for why and how
to change them, do so — just email <RulesCommittee_Secretary at ao.uscourts.gov>
with your write-up (preferably in a nicely formatted PDF).

AOUSC is extremely conservative (in the judicial sense), but some
suggestions do get approved.

I've actually submitted multiple proposals to AOUSC myself. One tiny one
got approved a few years ago (removing the SSN question from the appellate
IFP form). Two others (one about pro se use of CM/ECF, the other about
radically limiting and standardizing the civil, bankruptcy, & appellate IFP
forms & rules) currently have dedicated subcommittees assigned to them
taking them seriously (albeit very slowly and not as strongly as I think is
proper, it's extremely unusual for them to assign a dedicated subcommittee
at all). I have others in draft that I've not submitted yet.

You can read my suggestions, and others', at
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/records-rules-committees/rules-suggestions

Here's the summary of mine (several are given multiple IDs):

15-AP-E, 15-BK-I, 15-CV-EE, 15-CR-D re pro se & IFP — part approved, part
denied, part still pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-15-ap-e
15-CV-GG re forms post Iqbal/Twombly, denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-15-cv-gg
19-AP-C, 19-CR-A, 19-CV-Q re IFP rules, still pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-19-ap-c
19-AP-D, 19-BK-G, 19-CR-B, 19-CV-R re calculation of filing deadlines,
denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-19-ap-d
19-AP-G, 19-CV-FF re naming official capacity parties, denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-19-ap-g
20-AP-B, 20-CV-G re dismissal of meritless cases & sanctions, denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-20-ap-b
20-AP-D, follow-up re IFP rules, still pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-20-ap-d
20-AP-E, 20-CV-Y re "relation forward" rules, still pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-20-ap-e
21-AP-B follow-up re IFP forms
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-21-ap-b
21-BK-H re electronic signatures, denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-21-bk-h
21-CV-I re service on government parties & cleaning up FRCP 4(I), still
pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-21-cv-i
21-AP-E, 21-BK-I, 21-CR-E, 21-CV-J re pro se electronic filing, still
pending
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-21-ap-e
21-CV-K re AAJ's proposal re "snap removals", denied
https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/archives/suggestions/sai-21-cv-k

Sincerely,
Sai
President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3)

Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision and autocorrect
errors.

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022, 04:55 Thomas Dukeman via BlindLaw, <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
wrote:

> What I meant by change their minds is that they first refuse a case on
> Cert then when given the same case later on down the line, then decided to
> hear it then, can they do it at that time they choose to, or do they need
> to wait some prescribed time between denial of appeal and resubmission
> before accepting to hear it the second time, because they only hear a
> certain number of cases per term but feel it is worth hearing and set it
> aside for a later undisclosed time?
>
> Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
>
> From: Sai via BlindLaw<mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 9:15 PM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List<mailto:blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> Cc: Sai<mailto:sai at fiatfiendum.org>
> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Help understanding SCOTUS responses & Authority
>
> > I know that SCOTUS only gets involved in legal questions concerning the
> Constitution
>
> Not true. They primarily take cases that involve a circuit split. It
> needn't be a constitutional question.
>
> There are also a small number of cases that don't go on cert, but on appeal
> as of right or original jurisdiction — e.g. some habeas appeals & state vs
> state lawsuits. Most of them are denied without precedent also, though.
>
> > what happens to the court cases they send back? Are those decisions still
> considered legally binding for a time
>
> Denied cert has no effect whatever other than denying cert.
>
> The lower court (probably federal circuit court of appeals) decision
> stands, but it is not affirmed; it has no greater or lesser precedential
> value than it did before the cert petition.
>
> > is it only allowed one attempt at being sent to them and if it gets
> rejected, that’s it until they change their minds?
>
> That would be impossible. They can't change their minds without being
> presented a case, and cert is how you ask them to take a case. So if this
> were true, they would never have the opportunity to change their minds
> about a legal issue.
>
> However, denial of cert does mean that's it for that appeal. You cannot ask
> them to reconsider cert.
>
> (However however, a given case can go on multiple different appeals over
> the years, and sometimes — rarely — a case has had multiple trips to SCOTUS
> too. But that's just like having multiple appellate cases.)
>
> You seem to be confusing cert petition in a given case vs decision of a
> legal issue that might recur in another case later on.
>
> Sincerely,
> Sai
> President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3)
>
> Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision and autocorrect
> errors.
>
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022, 22:24 Thomas Dukeman via BlindLaw, <
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello fellow legal beagles!
> >
> > I know that SCOTUS only gets involved in legal questions concerning the
> > Constitution, and they can overturn a State court’s decision if asked,
> and
> > that they only do a certain number a year, what happens to the court
> cases
> > they send back? Are those decisions still considered legally binding for
> a
> > time until they get brought to SCOTUS for consideration again, or is it
> > only allowed one attempt at being sent to them and if it gets rejected,
> > that’s it until they change their minds?
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > Tom
> >
> > Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > BlindLaw mailing list
> > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > BlindLaw:
> >
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sai%40fiatfiendum.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
>
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/thomasdukeman%40outlook.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> BlindLaw mailing list
> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> BlindLaw:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sai%40fiatfiendum.org
>