Justice Dept. urges Supreme Court to deny certiorari in WhatsApp vs. NSO Group [pdf]
supremecourt.gov
supremecourt.gov
> "Certiorari is generally associated with the writ that the Supreme Court of the United States issues to review a lower court's judgment. A case cannot, as a matter of right, be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, a party seeking to appeal to the Supreme Court from a lower court decision must file a writ of certiorari.
> In the Supreme Court, if four Justices agree to review the case, then the Court will hear the case. This is referred to as "granting certiorari," often abbreviated as "cert." If four Justices do not agree to review the case, the Court will not hear the case. This is defined as denying certiorari."
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=In%20the%....
Hey, engineers can say "<foo> considered harmful" and laugh about it. It's an inside joke. Every profession has them.
I used to volunteer with a civics ed non-profit. Students, almost all whom had already completed their required civics curriculum, entered our program with all sorts of wildly insane misunderstandings of American governance.
[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:g4DAnD...
I should stop having impostor syndrome.
Would this be more accurate? I'm not sure the judicial branch is considered political enough for "one group" to "have".
For that matter... the Judicial branch is quite political, and is widely considered to be "had" by one particular political party. 2/3 of its members were nominated by that party, and nominations have been increasingly subjected to ideological litmus tests. (Which they must then pretend not to have until confirmed.)
And 100% of them repeat the tired cliche of name-dropping "Founding Fathers" in every reddit thread.
The actual process by which laws are passed resembles the schoolhouse rock version about as much as Roger Rabbit resembles criminal proceedings.
While it's objectively the case that this is not accurate, control of those three is commonly called a "trifecta" by pundits and political operatives, so that's probably the source of the confusion.
Knowing that the judiciary is set up to be independent is pretty critical.
My point is that this could easily be a slip of the tongue, the kind of mistake that I could see myself making when speaking extemporaneously. But making that mistake would not mean that I didn't understand the difference between the three branches of government and the three distinct "federal electoral prizes", so to speak.
Knowing that we're talking about Tommy Tuberville, I'm obviously less inclined to offer him the benefit of the doubt, but we are still jumping to conclusions.
I think you'd find that shocking percentages of Americans don't understand any basic information. Probably not even who's the Vice President, or who's next in line of succession after the VP.
I am Canadian and it's the first time I have heard this term. I am surprised you know about this from Sweden. I knew of the Canadian term, "leave" or "leave to appeal" though.
All cert. denied means is that the Court decided not to hear the case. That may be because they agree with the lower court, but that is just one reason they might decide not to hear the case.
Another reason they might decide cert. is that although they think the case raises issues that they need to deal with, the particular circumstances of this particular case don't present the issue as clearly as they would like. They want to wait until a better case comes along with the issue.
Sometimes they want to wait until appeals courts in different regions have considered the issue and explored different approaches to it so more of the possible arguments on both sides have been hashed out.
The use of “certiorari” for legal review is literally older than English, so complaining about its continued use as adding jargon is misplaced.
Source: Am American. The average joe here doesn't know very much about how the appellate legal system works, or the terms at use.
Curious, did a government step forward to agree with NSO that it should be recognized as a foreign government agent? If so, is this publicly documented, and more importantly, is it material to the case?
>And no foreign state has supported NSO’s claim to immunity; indeed, NSO has not even identified the states for which it claims to have acted as an agent.
The NSO is basically saying "just trust us, we represent a government or two".
Unless there’s some hidden reason that the government doesn’t want the consequences of the Supreme Court agreeing and having additional effects…
Conspiracy folks who think the Justice department is fighting for NSO need to actually read the linked article
Yes, they may well be able to sneak out at night. But that's not how legitimate businesses operate, and it might change the process and outcome in the next country where litigation appears. If NSO moves and abandons assets in the US to escape liability, what happens when similar actions are brought in Germany or the UK or wherever? Presumably plaintiffs would insist on accounts being frozen immediately given NSO's absconding from the US.
Fleeing may help owners extract maximum value from the company before it collapses, but it will not serve the purposes of continuing to operate a legitimate for-profit company.