Da Supreme Court’s Cherry-Pickin’ Scoops: One Nui Nui Check Out 🍒⚖️🔍

⬇️ Pidgin | ⬇️ ⬇️ English

Da Supreme Court Stay Play Favorites, Dey Like Mix Politics Inside Judging? 👀 Skip all da kine extra stuffs. We going straight to da meat of da story. Eh, you know how we say dat Da Supreme Court stay make decisions on top cases? Dat’s not totally correct.

🤔 Dey pick one small kine question fo’ answer from plenny choices or sometimes dey even write their own ones. Dis style get one disturbing element of politics inside the judicial process, says Benjamin B. Johnson. He stay teach law at University of Florida and he wen write three recent papers about dis topic. Dey no more do what a court supposed to do – decide cases, he say.

Dats mo’ like what a legislature does – answering discrete policy questions. 😮 Check out some examples for see wat I mean: When Da Supreme Court agree for hear one big case dis term, dey reject the modest question proposed by those suing and instead they only consider overturning an important precedent – Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council case! Same ting happen with Dobbs case where constitutional right to abortion was taken away! When they agreed for review this case too, dem picked only the broadest from three proposed questions leading them to overrule Roe v Wade! Professor Johnson wrote in Alabama Law Review: “Even though had other ways fo’ resolve without causing controversy firestorm 🔥 , justices intentionally eliminated those alternatives.” In another recent example when Christian web designer challenge Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual orientation 🏳️‍🌈 , court accept just part of her two suggested questions!

They said they wouldn’t look into whether that law conflict with her religious freedom rights but would treat it as free-speech issue! And last month when court agree hear two big First Amendment and social media cases 💻 , didn’t take any parties’ suggested questions! Instead, they looked at a friend-of-the-court brief filed by Biden administration and chose two out of four questions! This kine cherry-picking 🍒 and revising is increasing, says Professor Johnson. Wat was once rare occurrence now makes up between one-tenth to one-quarter of the docket, he say.

He also add that this practice get problems. “This arrangement may serve da court’s institutional interests,” he wrote in Columbia Law Review, “but it also pulls da court into politics.

NOW IN ENGLISH

Supreme Court’s Cherry-Picking Analysis: An In-depth Review

Does the Supreme Court play favorites, mixing politics into their judgments? 👀 Let’s cut to the chase. You know how we say that The Supreme Court makes decisions on cases?

That’s not entirely accurate.🤔 They select a minor question to answer from many options or sometimes they even formulate their own. This approach introduces an unsettling element of politics into the judicial process, says Benjamin B. Johnson.

He teaches law at University of Florida and has written three recent papers on this subject. They are not doing what a court is supposed to do – decide cases, he says.This resembles more closely what a legislature does – answering specific policy questions 😮 Here are some examples for clarity: When The Supreme Court agreed to hear a major case this term, they dismissed the modest question proposed by those suing and instead only considered overturning an important precedent – Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council case! Same thing happened with Dobbs case where constitutional right to abortion was taken away!

When they agreed for review this case too, they selected only the broadest from three proposed questions leading them overrule Roe v Wade! Professor Johnson wrote in Alabama Law Review: “Even though there were other ways resolve without causing controversy firestorm 🔥 , justices intentionally eliminated those alternatives.” In another recent example when Christian web designer challenged Colorado law against discrimination based on sexual orientation 🏳️‍🌈 , court accepted just part of her two suggested questions!The said that wouldn’t look into whether that law conflicted with her religious freedom rights but would treat it as free-speech issue! And last month when court agree hear two big First Amendment and social media cases 💻 , didn’t take any parties’ suggested questions!

Instead looked at friend-of-the-court brief filed by Biden administration chose two out four questions This kind cherry-picking 🍒 revising increasing, says Professor Johnson. What was once rare occurrence now makes up between one-tenth to one-quarter of the docket, he says.He also adds that this practice has issues.