Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostwriter
My remark about NAMBLA is quite apparently over your head. It is more a statement about the slippery slope that may be in front of us (some posters got it and, as was thier right, refuted it) With people like you (who believe anything goes) the NAMBLA statement is probably not that far out of the realm of possibility. See, I can make stupid assumptions too.
|
Starting with assumption that your remark was over his head. While I don't think a slippery slope is a
completely off-the-wall concern in this area (though not nearly to the degree many are trying to make it), you're on a totally different hill because your example by definition involves minors, which raises an entirely different set of legal concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanners52674
MC can you elaborate on why SCOTUS is not likely to take up the case if it is overturned on appeal?
|
It's just a guess, and I could easily be wrong. Four of the nine justices have to vote to take a case for the Supreme Court to hear it. As a general rule, they prefer to take cases where there is a divurgence of opinions among the circuit courts of appeals -- split circuits, it's called. They view their job as being to resolve the split among the circuits.
Also as a general rule, they prefer to let cases percolate up among the circuits to see if a split or a consensus develops. Why should they use up their limited time on a case if the circuits end up being in agreement?
So my hunch on this one is that if the Ninth Circuit reverses, which would basically perserve a status quo in that circuit, they'll think it prudent to wait and see what happens in other cases in other circuits. But if the Ninth Circuit affirms, I think at least four of them will think the decision constitutes enough of a legal shift with potential effects outside California and the Ninth Circuit that they have to step in and decide themselves.
But I could be quite wrong.
Threaded Mode
