Elky Welky
Well-known member
Had I not had to work, I would have enjoyed listening in. Are they going to post the recording after the fact?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Had I not had to work, I would have enjoyed listening in. Are they going to post the recording after the fact?
SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.
Why just those states?SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.
Just to clarify, if the hunters win, the only states where corner crossing will be explicitly legal based upon this case will be: WY, CO, OK, NM, UT, and KS.
Why just those states?
It seems unfair that the supreme court wouldnt want to take this one up based on the land/resources/people affected though, right? Especially considering a lot of this is concerning federally owned land - and itd seem like that since the federal government is managing the land uses/access.SCOTUS takes a very limited number of cases. If the hunters win this appeal, even if the landowner requests review from the supreme court, I highly doubt they will take up the case.
Just to clarify, if the hunters win, the only states where corner crossing will be explicitly legal based upon this case will be: WY, CO, OK, NM, UT, and KS.
The court only hears about 100-150 of roughly 7000 cases that come before them, and often they hear the cases that satisfy political whims and contemporary national issues. The tenth circuit ruling, although not law, could be highly persuasive in other circuits. If another case came up in the ninth circuit (MT, ID, and the west coast, AK, and Hawaii), and the 9th circuit rules the other way, then there will be a "circuit split" which could become more interesting (dare I say... "appealing") for SCOTUS to take up.It seems unfair that the supreme court wouldnt want to take this one up based on the land/resources/people affected though, right? Especially considering a lot of this is concerning federally owned land - and itd seem like that since the federal government is managing the land uses/access.
No, it just means the lower court's ruling still only applies in the 10th, and in the other circuits it remains an open question. In the other circuits it becomes "persuasive" authority but it is not "precedent," and if they choose to reject it they can.I thought that if SCOTUS declines to hear the case then it’s upholding the lower court’s decision therefore anyone could use the ruling of the 10th.
Ha - hes not the only one whos wined and dined by special interest. Breyer and the feminist lord ginsburg were the same way.The court only hears about 100-150 of roughly 7000 cases that come before them, and often they hear the cases that satisfy political whims and contemporary national issues. The tenth circuit ruling, although not law, could be highly persuasive in other circuits. If another case came up in the ninth circuit (MT, ID, and the west coast, AK, and Hawaii), and the 9th circuit rules the other way, then there will be a "circuit split" which could become more interesting (dare I say... "appealing") for SCOTUS to take up.
Of course, someone could just buy Justice Thomas a new Winnebago and he might be more interested in hearing the case.
Ha - hes not the only one whos wined and dined by special interest. Breyer and the feminist lord ginsburg were the same way.
Not condoning it - just expanding your complaint.