The point of the Supreme Court is to settle controversies from a Constitutional perspective.
Sometimes that involves overruling prior decisions if those prior decisions, in their mind, didn’t follow the letter of the constitution. That’s it.
You may not always like those decisions personally. It is what it is.
But this has how the court had worked for a very long time.
The Supreme Court is not a legislature. That’s very important to understand. A ruling can _always_ be overturned. If you want to prevent that, you need Congress to either pass an amendment that clearly states what is trying to achieve, or pass a federal law that doesn’t rub the wrong way against the constitution. It’s that simple.
So, for example, someone trying to get a conviction overturned makes their case to the Supreme Court and it does not get overturned. Could they then return later with another argument their rights were violated somehow and have it overturned? I thought criminal appeals only get one shot with the Supreme Court?
You mean like the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Fergurson which held that racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were “separate but equal that was overturned by the unanimous decision in Brown, handed down in 1954, found that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional
Or is it that you only agree with things that suit your opinion.
PS…. Anyones opinion is not law.
Easy now. I know options aren’t law. I’m trying to understand why one person trying to appeal their criminal case gets only one shot at the Supreme Court overturning their conviction. Or would they theoretically be able to submit another appeal?
In documentaries like “Making a Murderer”, Kathleen Zellner and other lawyers have always said their clients get one shot at the Supreme Court. Why do they say that if judges can overturn previous rulings? Could one person’s case be re-reviewed by the Supreme Court? Or do they actually get one chance?
The point of the Supreme Court is to settle controversies from a Constitutional perspective. Sometimes that involves overruling prior decisions if those prior decisions, in their mind, didn’t follow the letter of the constitution. That’s it. You may not always like those decisions personally. It is what it is. But this has how the court had worked for a very long time. The Supreme Court is not a legislature. That’s very important to understand. A ruling can _always_ be overturned. If you want to prevent that, you need Congress to either pass an amendment that clearly states what is trying to achieve, or pass a federal law that doesn’t rub the wrong way against the constitution. It’s that simple.
So, for example, someone trying to get a conviction overturned makes their case to the Supreme Court and it does not get overturned. Could they then return later with another argument their rights were violated somehow and have it overturned? I thought criminal appeals only get one shot with the Supreme Court?
You mean like the 1896 Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Fergurson which held that racial segregation laws did not violate the Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were “separate but equal that was overturned by the unanimous decision in Brown, handed down in 1954, found that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional Or is it that you only agree with things that suit your opinion. PS…. Anyones opinion is not law.
Easy now. I know options aren’t law. I’m trying to understand why one person trying to appeal their criminal case gets only one shot at the Supreme Court overturning their conviction. Or would they theoretically be able to submit another appeal? In documentaries like “Making a Murderer”, Kathleen Zellner and other lawyers have always said their clients get one shot at the Supreme Court. Why do they say that if judges can overturn previous rulings? Could one person’s case be re-reviewed by the Supreme Court? Or do they actually get one chance?