Sensitive Are there any cases taken on by the supreme law of the land that you disagree with? (2 Viewers)

[Ahsoka]

This will be different for different countries ofc. And by disagree with I mean disagree that they took the case, not disagree with the result.

In the US some time back there was a Supreme Court case about a cheerleader who didn’t get onto the varsity team and threw a hissy fit, posting a Snapchat where she flipped off the camera and posted some swears directed at the school, cheer, and everything. She got removed from the team. Like sure the school may have been trigger happy but why exactly is this something that made it to the Supreme Court? Is there no other level of the justice system that could deal with this? It just seems like a very high up position for something like this And the fact that the judges agreed that this was a very important case that needs to be heard. There’s nothing more important?

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2021-06-23/supreme-court-sides-with-cheerleader-in-first-amendment-social-media-case

 

[StirFriedPanda]

In the US some time back there was a Supreme Court case about a cheerleader who didn’t get onto the varsity team and threw a hissy fit, posting a Snapchat where she flipped off the camera and posted some swears directed at the school, cheer, and everything. She got removed from the team. Like sure the school may have been trigger happy but why exactly is this something that made it to the Supreme Court?

My non-lawyer educated guess is the reason the supreme court took this case because it deals directly with free speech but also (and very importantly) the school acted as a law enforcement agency in suppressing that girls free speech during non-school hours. Had she made those video's during school hours I highly doubt the Supreme Court would have heard the case. The fact that they tried to suppress her free speech during non school hours is a legal area that only governmental law enforcement agencies can tread in (and very carefully). I actually think the Supreme Court made a good decision in both hearing this case and their opinion that the disciplinary measure's infringed on the girls 1st amendment rights.

 

[Ahsoka]

My non-lawyer educated guess is the reason the supreme court took this case because it deals directly with free speech but also (and very importantly) the school acted as a law enforcement agency in suppressing that girls free speech during non-school hours. Had she made those video's during school hours I highly doubt the Supreme Court would have heard the case. The fact that they tried to suppress her free speech during non school hours is a legal area that only governmental law enforcement agencies can tread in (and very carefully). I actually think the Supreme Court made a good decision in both hearing this case and their opinion that the disciplinary measure's infringed on the girls 1st amendment rights.

I may not be well educated on law but is there absolutely no stage prior to the Supreme Court that could have taken this? It just seems to be a very extreme solution to her problem.

 

[StirFriedPanda]

Abortion rights(I'm not here to debate on weather abortion is right or wrong): Although it's not the first instance of the Supreme Court over turning it's own decisions the difference in this situation is it over turned it's decision based on politics (and morals) not on the execution of law. A predominantly democratic Supreme Court legalized abortion. The currently, majority republican Supreme court, over turned Roe vs. Wade simply because they had the majority of power and could. Opinions can be over turned if a flaw is found in the legal reasoning for the original opinion. No flaw was found in the original opinion but it was overturned. This unfortunately has opened the door to legal chaos because now, old and accepted opinions, can and will, be over turned because the political power had changed hands.

 

[RandAlThor]

I may not be well educated on law but is there absolutely no stage prior to the Supreme Court that could have taken this? It just seems to be a very extreme solution to her problem.

before it gets to the supremes it has to go thru layers of courts and appellate courts that process can take a very long time.
Someone with very deep pockets will have to fund it also.

 

[StirFriedPanda]

I may not be well educated on law but is there absolutely no stage prior to the Supreme Court that could have taken this? It just seems to be a very extreme solution to her problem.

To get to the Supreme Court it either had to go through all the previous jurisdictions(stages) or was such an injustice the supreme court needed to rule so that all previous jurisdictions knew how to make appropriate rulings. Generally issues of free speech start in the lowest federal courts or are sent from state supreme courts to the federal courts becuase free speech is generally a federal level constitutional issue. A state constition can grant equal or greater protections to the US constitution but not less than. Most state courts would rather free speech issues be handled in a federal court than waste their resources on something that will be appealed to the federal level anyways.

 

[RandAlThor]

Abortion rights(I'm not here to debate on weather abortion is right or wrong): Although it's not the first instance of the Supreme Court over turning it's own decisions the difference in this situation is it over turned it's decision based on politics (and morals) not on the execution of law. A predominantly democratic Supreme Court legalized abortion. The currently, majority republican Supreme court, over turned Roe vs. Wade simply because they had the majority of power and could. Opinions can be over turned if a flaw is found in the legal reasoning for the original opinion. No flaw was found in the original opinion but it was overturned. This unfortunately has opened the door to legal chaos because now, old and accepted opinions, can and will, be over turned because the political power had changed hands.

abortion itself the cat is out of the bag and will not go back.

I think you will find there is plenty of debate on the legal underpinning of Roe, and the follow on decisions. Depending on how you feel about the issue may color how the arguments are accepted, but there are scholars who have argued about it since the 70's.

Even still they just kicked it back to the states and said its not a problem that falls under the federal domain.

if any congress in the pas 6-7 decades had wanted to actually write and pass a law they could have.

Accepted opinions should be overturned if they were incorrectly decided. Does not matter how long they have been around.

 

[Ahsoka]

before it gets to the supremes it has to go thru layers of courts and appellate courts that process can take a very long time.
Someone with very deep pockets will have to fund it also.

My wording was bad, I meant no one was able to resolve this at a lower level rather than meaning that no one looked at it. I wouldn’t expect just anyone to take any case and have it immediately go to the Supreme Court. Also it’s weird to me that, whether they’re in the right or wrong, they wanted to spend a lot of money on this. I think many people don’t take cases like this very high because of money.

 

[StirFriedPanda]

My wording was bad, I meant no one was able to resolve this at a lower level rather than meaning that no one looked at it. I wouldn’t expect just anyone to take any case and have it immediately go to the Supreme Court. Also it’s weird to me that, whether they’re in the right or wrong, they wanted to spend a lot of money on this. I think many people don’t take cases like this very high because of money.

I agree, this was truly a weird waste of money. I'm willing to bet an NPO footed to bill. The sad part is it's entirely possible that since the school lost that they had to foot the bill which is a sad waste of educational funds.

 

[RandAlThor]

My wording was bad, I meant no one was able to resolve this at a lower level rather than meaning that no one looked at it. I wouldn’t expect just anyone to take any case and have it immediately go to the Supreme Court. Also it’s weird to me that, whether they’re in the right or wrong, they wanted to spend a lot of money on this. I think many people don’t take cases like this very high because of money.

The cost is crazy. Since there are very few lawyers who can actually argue before teh supreme court.
I think up thread had it right that it was taken on as a free speech issue.
Some group prob took it on as a way to make their bones in a 1st amendment case.

 

[seungfloral]

before it gets to the supremes it has to go thru layers of courts and appellate courts that process can take a very long time.
Someone with very deep pockets will have to fund it also.

That was my educated guess...

 

[seungfloral]

The cost is crazy. Since there are very few lawyers who can actually argue before teh supreme court.
I think up thread had it right that it was taken on as a free speech issue.
Some group prob took it on as a way to make their bones in a 1st amendment case.

Tbh she had the right to say anything, but also she was only kicked from the cheer team for it, not from school.... Idk, doesnt seem like a big deal to me.

Dad is a chief firefighter , idk xD