<blockquote>quote:[/size]Originally posted by auspice:
JC
I'm very much a layman re judicial matters so please accept this as a mere speculation/question.
It is my understanding that just about the only time the supreme court agrees to hear a case is when different findings are rendered
by different district courts on very similar fact cases.
Do you think this recent case finding will perhaps help in having your case heard by the supreme court?
Best Wishes with your case by the way...
[This message has been edited by auspice (edited 11-08-2001).][/quote]
Auspice,
You are right, in general. The Supreme Court receives many thousands of appeals each year, and only agrees to hear a couple of hundred (in addition to those cases in which, under the Constitution, it has "original jurisdiction" and as the primary court must hear the case, like boundary disputes between states). Given its limited time, the Court will only hear cases with some importance.
Generally, this means cases involving areas of the law in which the different circuit courts of appeal (above the district courts) have ruled differently, creating a conflict. Obviously, it is important for everyone to be subject to the same rules throughout the US, so when courts of appeal disagree on a legal issue, there is a strong incentive for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal involving that area of law.
However, the Court may also decide to hear a case if the issue is important enough, regardless of whether a split exists among the circuits. Thus, if an important Constitutional right is at stake. Also, you probably noticed last Fall the Court was rather quick to take (and rule on) several appeals from decisions of the Florida Supreme Court involving a dispute between some guys named Bush and Gore. The Supreme Court could have declined to have heard the cases, and many thought it should have done so (for some reason, they were mainly Democrats).
That is why Jay must cast his appeal as having the potential to create an important precedent in the governance of the internet. Otherwise, the Court could well decline to hear the case. The Yahoo! case helps also by showing the 2d Circuit decision was perhaps in conflict with another circuit's reasoning in this area.
Hartley,
I do not agree with your blanket statement that "International law should always supercede domestic law." Taken to its logical extreme, we would have to dump our support of Israel in compliance with certain UN resolutions condemning it.
Certainly, the Constitution recognizes that treaties are, with the Constitution and federal law the supreme law of the land. But the wholesale surrender of sovereignty is not required by international law or the Constitution. We can of course agree to things, but they cannot be imposed from without.
In fact, at least in the tax area, when there is a conflict between the law and a treaty, the one that was passed later takes precedence. This drives our treaty partners wild at times, as they will strike a deal with us in a tax treaty and several years later Congress will pass a law taking away their benefit. These days Congress usually will in new legislation grandfather in existing treaties' provisions, but they do not have to.
[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: PATTON ]</p>  |