Troll of the Day: Richard “Cabeza” Bennett
If you haven’t been following Dick Cabeza’s efforts to one-up Patterico and me on the law, you should be. Here’s the logic you’ll need to get up to speed:
- The U.S. Supreme Court typically grants certiorari (i.e., decides to hear a case brought to its attention) when at least four Justices vote in favor of ruling on the decision. This is the so-called “rule of four.”
- Therefore, when the Supreme Court grants cert, you can assume that at least four Justices voted to take the case, and when it does not, you can assume that at least six either voted not to or did not participate in the decision to grant or deny cert.
- Unless, of course, the case in question involved Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices agreed unanimously not to hear the case.
- The Supreme Court denies cert in the overwhelming majority of the cases brought to its attention, usually for reasons having nothing to do with the Justices’ opinions on the merits of the underlying case.
- Therefore, denial of certiorari does not set any precedent, and is cited only to show that a case has been fully litigated, not that any or all members of the Supreme Court agree with the lower court ruling.
- Unless, of course, the case in question involves Terri Schiavo, in which case denial of cert means all nine Justices believe the lower court ruling was 100% correct, and are just too lazy to issue a quick per curiam affirming that case on the merits.
Does that make sense to you? If so, you’re ready to explore Cabeza-land. Go.
UPDATE: It’s beginning to look like Patterico may have finally managed to shut him down.
April 26th, 2005 at 7:16 pm
heh. Wouldn’t that be ricardo?
April 27th, 2005 at 8:31 am
Or, as Shakespeare wrote, “nothing will come of nothing”.
April 27th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Then again, there is the 9th Circuit, which has the honor of getting the occasional quick 9-0 per curiam reversals without a hearing. That’s gotta hurt.