Tuesday, March 1, 2016

and we go DOOT! DOOT DOOT!

Raymond Doot again shows he doesn't know jurisprudence, even if he knows how to entice greed-heads who don't know anything about jurisprudence themselves.

***************

When an appellate court declines review, it is not a statement about the opinion from which the appellant took an appeal.  It is not a review of the opinion nor an approval of its reasoning or conclusions.

It may be as simple as this:  the issue(s) and decision below might be one(s) that SCOTUS would hear if the setting were different.  Sensational Smiles might not be the best case in which to clarify the issue(s) under review.  There may be more cases filtering up to SCOTUS which present the issue(s) in a more easily resolved/clarified manner.

There may be other issues, like procedural SNAFUs, in the underlying case.  Maybe the litigants' appellate papers weren't up to snuff.  They may have failed to comply with standard SCOTUS filing requirements.  They may have formatted everything correctly, but failed to accurately present the issues.

Many reasons why SCOTUS would decline appellate review.  None of them is the same as accepting the appeal, and affirming the court below along with any part of its decision.

***************

The Silent T has so much smugness covering up so much ignorance and wrongness.

Maybe Raymond Doot will get a job teaching jurisprudence at George Mason U.  That would be sweet.

3 comments:

Chet Redweld said...

I notice Raymond has made a face-saving attempt in a newer entry which observes that SCOTUS gets cases another way, via petitions for writs of certiorari.

I'm going to suggest that Raymond read the classic text authored by my Federal Courts and Supreme Court Practice professor from the ancient papyrus academy:

http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Practice-Eugene-Gressman/dp/1570185549

Maybe after reading it, he can muster half-literate judiciary coverage of SCOTUS matters even though he lacks an education in the law generally, in federal practice more particularly, or SCOTUS practice precisely.

Chet Redweld said...

It's amazing what Doot can write, and get away with, when the Silent T Commentariat is made up of marketing, computer science, economics, and business degree holders.

I'm a little surprised at the jurisprudential ignorance on display at the Silent T.

Wait.

No, I'm not.

Harold Caidagh said...

...when the Silent T Commentariat is made up of marketing, computer science, economics, and business degree holders.

I think you left out the important (personality-wise) categories, engineering and accounting.