In the Land of the Free... you can't criticize Israel

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sokolov, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    All I know is you made a claim that you haven't been able to prove. One instance of something occurring wouldn't prove anything, and you know that.

    We basically have to show that certain kinds of cases are denied more often, and that the kind of case we would be talking about are EASIER to get heard. I don't deny it's a POSSIBILITY, but I am just stating we haven't seen any proof.
  2. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    for 94.1% of cases they wasted their time. either way they will all escalate their case to that level it's not about their chances at least not when the have a 94.1% failure rate.

    they'd do it if it was 0.0001% successful to be heard

    you are't arguing the same tihng as me.

    i'm stating some cases get escalated to th supreme court even though their odds are very low to be heard, these cases would make cases that have good chances to be heard seem harder as they are pooled in with all other cases. I don't know the effect on the numbers it could be tiny it could be huge I just don't know. it could in fact be so tiny it's almost not worth mentioning but I don't know

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make, as you are denying it and accepting it by posting those figures....
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  3. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So the above was 2017.

    Here's 2016:

  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I claimed that it's not easy to get a case heard.

    You claimed I was overstating.

    I asked you to explain.

    You said that some cases have low chances to be heard; an example is death sentence appeals. The implication being that this means other cases (like the one we are hypothesizing) might have a higher chance to be heard.

    I am now showing you that death sentence appeals are actually more likely to be granted than the average case, not less; which means your example is the opposite of what you wanted to show.

    Again, I am not denying it's POSSIBLE that the case we are hypothesizing might get heard easier than average - we just don't have any evidence that this is true.
  5. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    ah I at least understand what you are trying to prove at this point.

    since you seem to know where to find the numbers, do you have the numbers for the state supreme courts as that is where death sentence cases are usually sent for review not the us supreme court, and each of those courts would have differing figures. that's where I was having issues ad was not able to find the correct information

    also don't we comparatively need a base line for this comparison to work? like how many comparative cases get heard for the opposite side? like how many of he 7000 are constitutional challenges such as hers an how many get denied review.
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2019
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    IMO, it should be up to you to prove the point when you are accusing me of being misleading/lying/interpretating wrong/whatever multiple times in one thread. That's why I am being "petty" about this because you are making accusations that you seem unable to defend or apologize for.

    The US Supreme Court almost never hears any case that hasn't already been heard at lower appeals courts (whether it's the state sc or US court of appeals). So it's not like the death sentence cases are an outlier here.

    Under the Court’s ‘Original Jurisdiction’
    The least likely way in which a case might be heard by the Supreme Court is for it to be considered under the Court’s "original jurisdiction."Original jurisdiction cases are heard directly by the Supreme Court without going through the appeals courts process. Under Article III, Section II of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over rare but important cases involving disputes between the states, and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. Under federal law at 28 U.S.C. § 1251. Section 1251(a), no other federal court is allowed to hear such cases.

    Typically, the Supreme Court considers no more than two cases a year under its original jurisdiction.

    Most cases heard by the Supreme Court under its original jurisdiction involve property or boundary disputes between states. Two examples include Louisiana v. Mississippi and Nebraska v. Wyoming, both decided in 1995.

    I will see what I can find though.
  7. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    while it's true that every death sentence needs to pass through the state SC before reaching the US SC, legally I believe lawyers can stop at the state SC that said it does buy their clients another year or two so some would go the extra mile.

    anyway was just hoping to see a larger sample size to get a better idea of the information.
  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Which is why citing just "death sentence appeals" wasn't satisfactory to me. You made the claim I was misleading on what seems to amount to nothing but a gut feeling, and the only good data point we have doesn't prove your point so far.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So there's some information on the subject matter when it comes to HEARD cases, I am not finding anything on the subject matter of ALL appeals.


  10. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    do you believe the lack of accurate information proves your point than?

    IMO at best we simply don't have enough information to draw any conclusion either way. your conclusion requires every case brought before the supreme court to have close to equal validity as a case worth being heard before the supreme court, and I can't prove the contrary.

    those charts are interesting I really wish they had ALL appeals that would be very enlightening.
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    So if we back up, this came up because I brought up a civil liberties issue where people are being forced to sign "loyalty oaths" as a condition of employment or government aid.

    You suggested this is a no big deal for various reasons, including "the supreme court can handle it."

    I said that it's not easy to get heard on the Supreme Court, citing the real facts that a small % of cases are actually heard by the SC.

    You claimed that I was overstating.

    And here we are.


    My conclusion simply requires that I think the original issue is enough of an issue for people to talk about because it's clear politicians think this is fine to do, rather than dismissed as nitpicking as you attempted to do. As we have seen with SOPA and other such laws, they will try, try and try again to do the corporation's bidding and we, as citizens, have to be vigilant about protecting our rights.

    Once a law is passed, it has implications and impacts people's lives - EVEN if it's overturned later - the damage has already been done.

Share This Page