I KNOW the definitions, son. I was a lawyer for nearly fifty years. I think I’ve got a handle on this. But you go on and try to tell me how it all works.
I’ll tell you again, an Amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed by a non-party. They aren’t parties who come into the case. The cases are over as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The ruling of the lower courts stand. That’s what denying certiorari means. Again, believe whatever you like.
Usually when people default to belittling their opponent its because they're wrong and desperate. You honestly don't speak with a tone of confidence but with a tone of arrogance. So I'm going to choose to not believe your baseless and sourceless claims spoken from arrogance, and will instead believe the ones with bases and sources spoken with sincerity.
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
P.S. "baseless and sourceless claims" sounds like some shit CNN would say about Donald Trump or "QAnon."
u/Inhimwekek was correct in his definition of Amicus Curiae, EVEN if he spelled it wrong and is larping as a retired lawyer. If he's telling the truth about that second part, the only person with an arrogant tone is you.
I’ll tell you again, an Amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed by a non-party.
What is AMICUS CURIAE?
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
The definition proves u/Inhimwekek is right and you are wrong. It's funny you don't find yourself arrogant when you claim the exact opposite.
I'll trust that you're an experienced lawyer. my questions to you are:
why is the court allowing these amicus briefs if case truly denied?
when a case is truly dismissed there's no additional filings unless say the court wanted the parties to write the judgement for judge's review as i think happens rarely. the decision allows only a couple of specific state legislative groups to file.
what case info would SCOTUS want or need from any LOWER court, which appears to be the purpose of granting writ?
is it not possible that the judges will consider the case based only on the briefs once they are received? seems odd they wouldn't allow parties to file, but perhaps there's some genius legal maneuver here that leaves most black hats thinking the case is done
if nothing else we must admit it would be extremely strange to allow briefs BEFORE issuing a final decision
Sorry, in answer to the second part of your question, SCOTUS is an appellate court only; it doesn’t hold trials exactly, it only looks at questions of law on appeal from lower courts (except in very rare cases). So they are really interested in the decision of the lower court and the questions of errors of law that are presented. Those are the only things taken up by SCOTUS, not the entire case top to bottom, so they may only look at a narrow issue. That’s what they were doing here.
So the information they would need from the lower court is minimal, and would be alleged by the party appealing the ruling of the lower court: what is it that you think that the court got wrong in applying the law in that case?
In all likelihood the Amicus briefs have already been submitted. The parties who submitted them knew the Court would grant them leave (permission) to submit them so they submitted them in advance. They were considered along with the briefs of each party in making the determination whether to grant cert. That is likely all the Justice looked at before giving his/her opinion to the other Justices.
Submitting Amicus briefs is VERY common is SCOTUS cases, especially high profile ones. I only worked on one, and it was to submit an Amicus brief. The Court considers them but of primary importance are the briefs of the parties....Amicus briefs are really not that important.
I KNOW the definitions, son. I was a lawyer for nearly fifty years. I think I’ve got a handle on this. But you go on and try to tell me how it all works.
I’ll tell you again, an Amicus brief is a “friend of the Court” brief filed by a non-party. They aren’t parties who come into the case. The cases are over as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. The ruling of the lower courts stand. That’s what denying certiorari means. Again, believe whatever you like.
Usually when people default to belittling their opponent its because they're wrong and desperate. You honestly don't speak with a tone of confidence but with a tone of arrogance. So I'm going to choose to not believe your baseless and sourceless claims spoken from arrogance, and will instead believe the ones with bases and sources spoken with sincerity.
I only care about truth.
Black's Law Dictionary
What is AMICUS CURIAE?
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
https://thelawdictionary.org/amicus-curiae/
P.S. "baseless and sourceless claims" sounds like some shit CNN would say about Donald Trump or "QAnon."
u/Inhimwekek was correct in his definition of Amicus Curiae, EVEN if he spelled it wrong and is larping as a retired lawyer. If he's telling the truth about that second part, the only person with an arrogant tone is you.
Saying baseless and sourceless is valid when it’s literally just a statement with nothing to back it up.
Your definition literally proves the post.
That’s funny you find me arrogant.
What is AMICUS CURIAE?
A party that is not involved in litigation but gives expert testimony when the court asks. They can support public interest not being addressed in the trial.
The definition proves u/Inhimwekek is right and you are wrong. It's funny you don't find yourself arrogant when you claim the exact opposite.
YoUr DeFiNiTiOn LiTeRaLlY pRoVeS tHe PoSt.
I'll trust that you're an experienced lawyer. my questions to you are:
when a case is truly dismissed there's no additional filings unless say the court wanted the parties to write the judgement for judge's review as i think happens rarely. the decision allows only a couple of specific state legislative groups to file.
is it not possible that the judges will consider the case based only on the briefs once they are received? seems odd they wouldn't allow parties to file, but perhaps there's some genius legal maneuver here that leaves most black hats thinking the case is done
if nothing else we must admit it would be extremely strange to allow briefs BEFORE issuing a final decision
Sorry, in answer to the second part of your question, SCOTUS is an appellate court only; it doesn’t hold trials exactly, it only looks at questions of law on appeal from lower courts (except in very rare cases). So they are really interested in the decision of the lower court and the questions of errors of law that are presented. Those are the only things taken up by SCOTUS, not the entire case top to bottom, so they may only look at a narrow issue. That’s what they were doing here.
So the information they would need from the lower court is minimal, and would be alleged by the party appealing the ruling of the lower court: what is it that you think that the court got wrong in applying the law in that case?
In all likelihood the Amicus briefs have already been submitted. The parties who submitted them knew the Court would grant them leave (permission) to submit them so they submitted them in advance. They were considered along with the briefs of each party in making the determination whether to grant cert. That is likely all the Justice looked at before giving his/her opinion to the other Justices.
Submitting Amicus briefs is VERY common is SCOTUS cases, especially high profile ones. I only worked on one, and it was to submit an Amicus brief. The Court considers them but of primary importance are the briefs of the parties....Amicus briefs are really not that important.