Quote:
Originally posted by valkyrie
Here is the issue:
At issue for the court is a relatively mundane technical issue: when may federal courts hear claims that are also involved state probate proceedings.
I can't say that Anna Nicole has anything to do with the decision to hear the case. I'm sure my old pal Antonin would say that it says nothing about fake boobs in the Constitution.
|
Trust me, the Supreme Court hears a small fraction of the cases that people want it to hear. A few years ago, the Court was receiving about 6,000 petitions a year -- they grant review and hear arguments in about 100 of those. (That's 1.6%.) And that's keeping it mind that it only takes 4 of the Justices voting to hear a case for review to be granted. To say they are
extremely selective would be a gross understatement.
Nor can I imagine that they would grant review just because of the "celebrity" involved.
Four of the Justices must have thought the issue presented, as noted above, was significant enough in terms of federalism and/or the jurisdiction of the federal courts for review to be granted.
Threaded Mode