• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court declines Bush bumper sticker case

The supreme court turns down the vast majority writs of cert that are sent to it. There are many reasons for this above and beyond the fact that the supreme court does not have the capacity to adjudicate both all the direct appeals and discretionary appeals sent to it. In many cases, the court determines that the existing r uling was correct (a split in circuits almost always guarantees the USSC will hear the case-such as the McDonald v Chicago (14th amendment / 2nd Amendment) where the 7th and 9th Circuit reached contrary conclusions.

so in this case, who knows but pissing and moaning about the Supremes not taking up this case is hardly do to sinister reasons.

They very likely wouldn't hear the case because a majority of them had no idea what to decide. Nothing sinister in that.
 
The Supreme Court declined to hear a case? Alert the media!

In all seriousness, I don't see why they need to hear this case. SCOTUS prefers to rule on cases with broad national interest, and I prefer it that way.
 
I agree. But there's also nothing barring them from being tossed either. The SCOTUS made the right decision.

Bumper stickers do not constitute evidence of a threat. They were thrown out for holding a dissenting opinion.
 
Bumper stickers do not constitute evidence of a threat. They were thrown out for holding a dissenting opinion.

There doesn't have to be a threat. And their dissenting opinion doesn't grant them the right to attend a speech. SCotUS made the correct decision.
 
There doesn't have to be a threat. And their dissenting opinion doesn't grant them the right to attend a speech. SCotUS made the correct decision.

The court never made a decision. They declined to hear the case.
 
This was a really layered event that raises a number of perplexing issues about the relationship between the civil, public, and private domains and the function of ideology in these domains. But in this case, the policy was probably unconstitutional. A taxpayer supported event that is accessible through a public venue probably can't be ordered around whether or not the attendees agree with the speaker. They can only be excluded if they posed a credible threat to the present's safety, which might be the pretext.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom