Theme: Constitutional Order

Here is the correct answer:
1) the facts are assumed to be correct unless it’s obvious
3) the court is generally concerned with matters of law, and law that that is ambigous, could lead to negative wild interpretations, or is of general applicability – not matters of fact.

In…

Here is the correct answer:
1) the facts are assumed to be correct unless it’s obvious
3) the court is generally concerned with matters of law, and law that that is ambigous, could lead to negative wild interpretations, or is of general applicability – not matters of fact.

In the case of this police officer it is entirely POSSIBLE for the court to do so given the factors involved. I just have a hard time seeing them do it for a number of reasons, not the least of which ‘they can’t win’ and produce ‘settled law’ – and so they prefer the States and the lower courts solve the question by competition rather than supreme court authority.

That said? Dunno. The judges and the people who clerk for them are very good at thinking about all the consequence of a ruling either way. And so they may find something worth settling, or they may find it’s not possible to settle the matter. Because thats what they do -produce ‘settlement’ in law.

The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States specify that, except in cases of clear necessity, the Court does not issue factual findings or engage in fact-finding processes. Its role is largely to consider whether the law has been applied correctly in the decisions rendered by lower courts. Here are some contexts in which this distinction plays out:

Certiorari Grant Criteria
When the Supreme Court grants a writ of certiorari to hear a case, it usually does so to resolve important questions of law that have broader implications beyond the specific case at hand. The Court is less likely to take up cases where the central dispute is over the facts or the quality of evidence, unless there is a significant constitutional or federal question implicated by those facts.

Standard of Review
For questions of law, the standard of review is generally “de novo,” meaning that the Court gives no deference to the lower courts’ legal conclusions. For questions of fact, the Court usually employs a “clearly erroneous” or “abuse of discretion” standard, giving deference to the lower courts’ factual findings unless there is a significant error.