| |
U.S. Supreme Court, ASHWANDER v.TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288
(1936) [abridged, for full text try somewhere like findlaw.com]
The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within
its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon
a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for
decision. They are:
1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a
friendly, nonadversary, proceeding
2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in
advance of the necessity of deciding it.'
3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than
is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'
4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly
presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon
which the case may be disposed of.
5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of
one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation.
6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the
instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
7. 'When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and
even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal
principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the
statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.'
-- end of abridged text--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ever heard anyone exclaim that they would fight something all the way to the
Supreme Court? Well, that's a lot harder than you might think. Generally,
litigants only have 1 appeal as a matter of right -- all other appeals are
accepted by leave of the court (in other words, they have to think it's
worth hearing or you are SOL). Even if you made it past the Federal Circuit
Court appellate level, you'd come head on with the Ashwander Doctrine as
summarized above -- that and the simple fact that the Surpreme Court is
overwhelmed with requests for its attentions. So even if you had a case that
was worthy, even if you met the above criteria, the U.S. Supreme Court has
the ability to simply refuse to hear your case and your case will simply
die. Hardly any cases have original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court,
cases are almost always heard only by leave of the court.
Hypothetical: let's say it's back in the days before the civil rights
movement really caught fire. You are a black woman that wants to ride on
the front of a public bus in the south. You do so. You are arrested for
breaking "colored" laws that prohibit a person of your particular
pigmentation from riding on the front of a public bus. You are tried and
convicted. You appeal and lose. You appeal and lose. Etc. But, you have
the good fortune to get all of your appeals heard by each subsequent higher
appellate court. The bright day comes when you have appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court and you feel sure you will taste victory at last (you have
even past the Ashwander Doctrine test)! Days pass. Months pass. Finally
you receive a letter informing you that the court has decided NOT to hear
your case. Effectively, this affirms the standing conviction against you.
Case closed.
Now that's NOT how that case actually turned out, in reality the U.S.
Supreme Court heard that case and the rest was history in the making. At
the same time, there are hundreds of "live" issues that many feel that the
court has refused to hear, effectively maintaining status quo on statutes
that are unconstitutional on their face and even the weirder instances of
perfectly legal statutes that are enforced in an illegal manner. It
happens. Think about it.
Now I ask you: is this fair?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is this fair?
|
| Nope, doesn't seem fair at all, but the buck has to stop somewhere right? That's why it's so important to know what's happening with the supreme court during election years: will any positions open up during the next presidency? what kind of people (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
